Re: AMD64
swest3: > >You're paying the price of being an early adopter :-). If any of the ghc > >developers had an AMD64, there'd probably be a registered build by now. > > > Well... these guys aren't very devoted now are they? Why can't they just > steal one like me? :) If someone steals one for me, I'll finish the port ... ;) ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: AMD64
duncan.coutts: > On Wed, 2004-06-02 at 15:45, scott west wrote: > > I'd settle for unregisterised... it seems every time I run through the > > whole port process I see to do some new wrong thing each time, hehe. I'm > > really just in search of a working ghc implementation for my amd64, > > registered or not (the main difference is the use of architecture > > specific registers and thus performance right?). > > Some ghc nomenclature: unregistered means "half as fast as you'd like it > to be". > > If you're after performance (rather than simply working), you'll need to > wait for a registered build, or if you've got the assembler hacking > skills you can help out. However, unregisterised amd64 is still as fast as my 2.4Ghz P4 registerised. ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: AMD64
swest3: > > >The amd64 port isn't really there yet. It works unregisterised, but the > >registerised support need some more work (as you discovered). You also > >need a non-broken version of gcc (3.3.3 or 3.4.0). > > > > > I'd settle for unregisterised... it seems every time I run through the > whole port process I see to do some new wrong thing each time, hehe. I'm > really just in search of a working ghc implementation for my amd64, > registered or not (the main difference is the use of architecture > specific registers and thus performance right?). Does anyone have any > unregistered amd64 builds that they've cooked up? If you are running OpenBSD on your amd64, regular builds of 6.2.1 for amd64 are happening in the -current branch. You can download them from ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/snapshots/packages/amd64/ghc-6.2.1.tgz You can also get a lot of the other common Haskell tools there too. -- Don ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
deriving Typeable
newtype Y e = Y { unY :: (e (Y e)) }
deriving(Data,Typeable,Show,Read,Eq)
gives
E.hs:64:
Can't make a derived instance of `Typeable (Y e)'
(`Y' is parameterised over arguments of kind other than `*')
When deriving instances for type `Y'
Is there any way around this limitation other than manually expanding Y
everywhere I want to use it (which I really don't want to do)? Is the
limitation inherent to the way Typeable works, or is it just that no one
has implemented it yet?
--
John Meacham - ârepetae.netâjohnâ
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: Handrolled linker?
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 06:19:00PM +0100, Duncan Coutts wrote: > On Wed, 2004-06-02 at 17:44, David Brown wrote: > > Any estimates on the difficulty of changing Linker.c to be able to use > > standard dynamic link calls (dlopen, ...) rather than having to be > > customized for every target platform. > > I asked Simon M about this recently: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg06189.html Actually, this isn't the question that I have. This is about ghci's dynamic loading of C objects (or other similar language). There is a handrolled linker in the ghci code. I'm interested in replacing this handrolled linker with dlopen... so that it is easier to port. Dave ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Unregistered build (was Re: AMD64)
I too would be happy with an unregistered build. I've tried off and on to port ghc to my linux distro (uses static linking against uClibc, glibc isn't present at all). Every time I go through the process, I get stuck at the point where I seem to have a working unregistered build. I can't quite find the missing link to proceed on to a registered build, and "make install" on the unregistered build doesn't do anything. Is there some special trick to get the unregistered build to make install? I'm not currently expecting to be a Haskell programmer, though who can tell what the future will bring, but I'd love to port darcs to my distro. -Bennett pgp0RgrMWApsZ.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: Handrolled linker?
On Wed, 2004-06-02 at 17:44, David Brown wrote: > Any estimates on the difficulty of changing Linker.c to be able to use > standard dynamic link calls (dlopen, ...) rather than having to be > customized for every target platform. I asked Simon M about this recently: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg06189.html He has some notes at: http://www.haskell.org/~simonmar/shared-libs Duncan ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Handrolled linker?
Any estimates on the difficulty of changing Linker.c to be able to use standard dynamic link calls (dlopen, ...) rather than having to be customized for every target platform. I'm considering making this work on powerpc-linux, but I'm thinking it might be a more useful task to make the linker more portable, rather than just hacking in another platform. There are a few platforms (linux alpha, linux powerpc) where the compiler wasn't very difficult to get working, but ghci doesn't work because of the linker problem. Dave ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: AMD64
You're paying the price of being an early adopter :-). If any of the ghc developers had an AMD64, there'd probably be a registered build by now. Well... these guys aren't very devoted now are they? Why can't they just steal one like me? :) And my one ray of hope is that there is a build for OpenBSD, but the port downloads the HC files to get it part-way there (as outlined in the ports section of the build guide). I'm giving the port another shot now, with the cvs source and a single ray of hope ;) Scott ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: AMD64
On Wed, 2004-06-02 at 16:14, scott west wrote: > >If you're after performance (rather than simply working), you'll need to > >wait for a registered build, or if you've got the assembler hacking > >skills you can help out. > > > I'm afraid of the few skills I have (walking, breathing, eating, etc), > working in assembler isn't one of them! And if I lower my standards (an > easy way to stay happy!) and just settle for a working, not > performance-oriented build, are my options basically porting it myself, > as per the instructions in the build-guide? Someone mentioned they had an unregistered build working so you could see if that's available or if you can get sufficiently detailed instructions to do it yourself. As for a registered build see: http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/building/sec-porting-ghc.html You'd have to do it yourself or persuade/bully/pay someone else to do it. It may be beyond your assembler skill but it's not necessarily extremely hard: * You're not changing OS or linker format * the arch is 64 bit, but ghc has been ported to 64 bit archs before I believe (Sparc64?) * The cpu register layout is similar to x86 (though the calling convention / C ABI is slightly different) You're paying the price of being an early adopter :-). If any of the ghc developers had an AMD64, there'd probably be a registered build by now. Duncan ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: AMD64
If you're after performance (rather than simply working), you'll need to wait for a registered build, or if you've got the assembler hacking skills you can help out. I'm afraid of the few skills I have (walking, breathing, eating, etc), working in assembler isn't one of them! And if I lower my standards (an easy way to stay happy!) and just settle for a working, not performance-oriented build, are my options basically porting it myself, as per the instructions in the build-guide? Scott ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: AMD64
Hello, scott west wrote: > Does anyone have any > unregistered amd64 builds that they've cooked up? And please put it on a ftp server somewhere if you have a working build for Linux/amd64. Gabriel. -- Gabriel Ebner - reverse "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ==> Please don't CC me! I'm reading the list. ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: AMD64
On Wed, 2004-06-02 at 15:45, scott west wrote: > I'd settle for unregisterised... it seems every time I run through the > whole port process I see to do some new wrong thing each time, hehe. I'm > really just in search of a working ghc implementation for my amd64, > registered or not (the main difference is the use of architecture > specific registers and thus performance right?). Some ghc nomenclature: unregistered means "half as fast as you'd like it to be". If you're after performance (rather than simply working), you'll need to wait for a registered build, or if you've got the assembler hacking skills you can help out. Duncan ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: AMD64
The amd64 port isn't really there yet. It works unregisterised, but the registerised support need some more work (as you discovered). You also need a non-broken version of gcc (3.3.3 or 3.4.0). I'd settle for unregisterised... it seems every time I run through the whole port process I see to do some new wrong thing each time, hehe. I'm really just in search of a working ghc implementation for my amd64, registered or not (the main difference is the use of architecture specific registers and thus performance right?). Does anyone have any unregistered amd64 builds that they've cooked up? Regards, Scott ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
RE: ghc web page
On 01 June 2004 18:00, John Meacham wrote: > server side includes are no longer being processed on the ghc web > server making the web page sort of not usable. perhaps someone > changed the .htaccess or apache config? Well spotted. Now fixed, thanks. > also, I no longer seem to have access to the fptools cvs repository, > my ssh login no longer works, should I resend my public key to > someone to get it fixed? thanks. I'll re-activate your account. What was your username? Cheers, Simon ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
http://cvs.haskell.org nonresponsive
Title: Message The last couple of days, http://cvs.haskell.org has been barely functional for me (pardon the pun). Does anybody know what's up? Dean ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
