> We'll definitely take the environment variable patch if it comes with a
> ghcbug script :-)
OK, well I'll be busy for the next few weeks so if someone else wants
to step up and do it, don't wait for me. But otherwise I'll put in on
my todo list.
Cheers,
Frederik
--
http://ofb.net/~frederik/
On 09 March 2005 19:55, Frederik Eaton wrote:
> I agree that the case you're presenting is indeed more difficult, but
> I don't think you're doing the estimations right for the one at hand.
> The cost and annoyance of perhaps tens of thousands of people adding
> and remembering to maintain wrapper
On 09 March 2005 21:13, Frederik Eaton wrote:
>>> I agree that the case you're presenting is indeed more difficult,
>>> but I don't think you're doing the estimations right for the one at
>>> hand. The cost and annoyance of perhaps tens of thousands of people
>>> adding and remembering to maintain
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 01:12:49PM -0800, Frederik Eaton wrote:
> > Are you volunteering to be that person? ;-)
>
> Are you saying that a patch would be accepted?
I am not the one to decide.
Best regards
Tomasz
___
Glasgow-haskell-bugs mailing list
Gla
> > I agree that the case you're presenting is indeed more difficult, but
> > I don't think you're doing the estimations right for the one at hand.
> > The cost and annoyance of perhaps tens of thousands of people adding
> > and remembering to maintain wrappers named 'ghc' somewhere in their
> > pa
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 11:55:11AM -0800, Frederik Eaton wrote:
> > I am still not convinced that it is a good idea to add such
> > functionality to GHC. Do you want to persuade developers of
> > every program you use to add similar feature?
>
> Is the perceived difficulty of that task an argument
I think the documentation for retainer profiling could be clearer...
> 5.4.2. Retainer Profiling
>
> Retainer profiling is designed to help answer questions like "why is
> this data being retained?". We start by defining what we mean by a
> retainer:
>
> A retainer is either the system stack
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 08:14:24PM +0100, Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 10:27:28AM -0800, Frederik Eaton wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 07:03:38PM +0100, Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
> > >
> > > I was complaing (only to myself) that rsync doesn't allow to put some
> > > common opt
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 10:27:28AM -0800, Frederik Eaton wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 07:03:38PM +0100, Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
> >
> > I was complaing (only to myself) that rsync doesn't allow to put some
> > common options in ~/.rsyncrc or an environment variable. Then I simply
> > added an a
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 07:03:38PM +0100, Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 10:01:40AM -0800, Frederik Eaton wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 05:19:18PM -, Simon Marlow wrote:
> > > On 09 March 2005 08:29, Frederik Eaton wrote:
> > >
> > Oh, is that the only reason? That's a t
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 10:01:40AM -0800, Frederik Eaton wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 05:19:18PM -, Simon Marlow wrote:
> > On 09 March 2005 08:29, Frederik Eaton wrote:
> >
> Oh, is that the only reason? That's a terrible reason to not have a
> feature. :) You could just write a 'ghcbug'
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 05:19:18PM -, Simon Marlow wrote:
> On 09 March 2005 08:29, Frederik Eaton wrote:
>
> > Is it possible to set environment variables which ghc will look at,
> > corresponding to command line options such as '-i' or '-package-conf'?
> > I.e. the equivalent of gcc's LIBRAR
Bugs item #1107398, was opened at 2005-01-22 18:41
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by ggd
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=108032&aid=1107398&group_id=8032
Category: None
Group: None
>Status: Closed
Resolution: Fixed
Priority: 5
Subm
Bugs item #1107398, was opened at 2005-01-22 18:41
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by ggd
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=108032&aid=1107398&group_id=8032
Category: None
Group: None
>Status: Open
Resolution: Fixed
Priority: 5
Submit
Bugs item #1107398, was opened at 2005-01-22 17:41
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by simonmar
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=108032&aid=1107398&group_id=8032
Category: None
Group: None
>Status: Closed
Resolution: Fixed
Priority: 5
This annoyed me too, especially when using ghc --make to build a
program that uses wxHaskell (long link time) on a slow machine (1Ghz
PIII).
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 00:48:56 -0800, Frederik Eaton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a reason why "ghc --make" always does a link step regardless
> of the
Is there a reason why "ghc --make" always does a link step regardless
of the timestamps of the dependencies?
If it could elide the link step when the output is up to date, it
would be much closer to 'make'.
Also, I was trying to write a simple replacement for 'runghc' which
keeps a compiled versi
17 matches
Mail list logo
