Re: Native Mode on Linux i386?
I haven't had time to download his binary distribution and try to recompile 2.04 yet. When I do, I'll let you know how it went. Sometimes I just don't get the time to do the things I *want* to do. Dave Barton <*> [EMAIL PROTECTED] )0( http://www.intermetrics.com/~dlb
Re: Native Mode on Linux i386?
David, Are you OK now, using the binary distribution that Sven put up? (We don't know why you get your seg fault, but Sven doesn't have the problem. And we don't have access to a Linux box. We will when we get back to Glasgow though.) | I did indeed recompile with the native generator option off. I now | get a segmentation fault. | To review: I am compiling 2.04 on a Linux box with a 2.04 compiler | that I built previously with the downloaded binaries for 0.29. gcc | version is 2.7.2. Simon
Re: Native Mode on Linux i386?
Well, since this just arrived.
I did indeed recompile with the native generator option off. I now
get a segmentation fault. The entire message is:
rm -f ghc/PrelBase.o ; if [ ! -d ghc/PrelBase ]; then mkdir ghc/PrelBase ; else exit
0; fi; find ghc/PrelBase -name '*.o' -print | xargs rm -f __rm_food;
../../ghc/driver/ghc -recomp -cpp -fglasgow-exts -fvia-C -Rghc-timing -split-objs
-odir ghc/PrelBase -H16M-c ghc/PrelBase.lhs -o ghc/PrelBase.o -osuf o
Warning: GENERATE_SPECS pre-processing pragma ignored:
{-# GENERATE_SPECS subtract
a{Int#,Double#,Int,Double,Complex(Double#),Complex(Double)} #-}
Warning: GENERATE_SPECS pre-processing pragma ignored:
{-# GENERATE_SPECS (.) a b c #-}
Warning: GENERATE_SPECS pre-processing pragma ignored:
{-# GENERATE_SPECS data a :: Lift a #-}
Warning: GENERATE_SPECS pre-processing pragma ignored:
{-# GENERATE_SPECS showList__ a #-}
NOTE: Simplifier still going after 4 iterations; bailing out.
Segmentation fault caught, address = b117cc
gmake[2]: *** [ghc/PrelBase.o] Error 1
gmake[1]: *** [all] Error 2
I'll try one or two more things (throwing some options at it, etc.).
However, I am pretty much stuck here: I don't know what to do about a
segmentation fault.
To review: I am compiling 2.04 on a Linux box with a 2.04 compiler
that I built previously with the downloaded binaries for 0.29. gcc
version is 2.7.2.
Dave Barton <*>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] )0(
http://www.intermetrics.com/~dlb
Re: Native Mode on Linux i386?
David Barton writes: > In my continuing saga to compile 2.04, I have completed the compile > with 0.29, and then tried to compile the compiler with 2.04 itself. > All went well (sort of, I had to increase the heap space on three or > four files) until it started compiling things in nativeGen; then, > obvious errors started showing up (for example, class Uniquable is not > visible in MachRegs, and the constructor ImmAddr is not visible in > MachCode). I recall seeing on the download page that the native code > generator is not really ready for 386. Is this correct? It seems to > be set to "Yes" by default; I have set it to "NO" in my build.mk file > and am recompiling. > > Comments? Have I missed something? > Some hours since you posted, so perhaps the recompilation has finished by now...this is the right thing to do at the moment, avoiding the native code generator on x86s. There's a bug just waiting to be squashed in the NCG, but until it has been dealt with, there's no point in compiling up the NCG here. I'm looking into the compilation problem you're seeing - thanks for the report. --Sigbjorn
Native Mode on Linux i386?
In my continuing saga to compile 2.04, I have completed the compile with 0.29, and then tried to compile the compiler with 2.04 itself. All went well (sort of, I had to increase the heap space on three or four files) until it started compiling things in nativeGen; then, obvious errors started showing up (for example, class Uniquable is not visible in MachRegs, and the constructor ImmAddr is not visible in MachCode). I recall seeing on the download page that the native code generator is not really ready for 386. Is this correct? It seems to be set to "Yes" by default; I have set it to "NO" in my build.mk file and am recompiling. Comments? Have I missed something? Dave Barton <*> [EMAIL PROTECTED] )0( http://www.intermetrics.com/~dlb
