On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 08:53 +0000, Simon Marlow wrote: > Duncan Coutts wrote: > > On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 12:13 +0000, Simon Marlow wrote: > > > > Yes, if we know we're using it. If we specify -package blah on the > > command line then we do know we're using it and everything works > > (because ghc uses the include-dirs when it calls cpp). If we don't > > specify -package then ghc does not know we need the package until after > > import chasing is done. Import chasing requires that we run cpp on > > the .hs file first and that brings us full circle. > > I don't see a reason why we shouldn't pass *all* the include paths for the > exposed packages to CPP. Indeed that's what I thought we did, but I've > just checked and I see we don't. Wouldn't that fix Conal's problem?
Yes it probably would. On my system that'd only be between 25-50 include directories, which I guess is not too bad. Lets hope not too many packages decide they need a "config.h" file. So, presumably by passing all include dirs for all exposed packages that takes into account -package flags, so when Cabal does -hide-all-packages then it gets its desired behaviour. Duncan _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users