Re: [GHC] #4901: Possible bug in GHCi archive loading:

2011-04-08 Thread GHC
#4901: Possible bug in GHCi archive loading: -+-- Reporter: batterseapower | Owner: Type: bug | Status: closed Priority: high| Milestone

Re: [GHC] #4901: Possible bug in GHCi archive loading:

2011-04-01 Thread GHC
#4901: Possible bug in GHCi archive loading: -+-- Reporter: batterseapower|Owner: Type: bug | Status: patch Priority: high |Milestone

Re: [GHC] #4901: Possible bug in GHCi archive loading:

2011-04-01 Thread GHC
#4901: Possible bug in GHCi archive loading: -+-- Reporter: batterseapower|Owner: Type: bug | Status: patch Priority: high |Milestone

Re: [GHC] #4901: Possible bug in GHCi archive loading:

2011-03-29 Thread GHC
#4901: Possible bug in GHCi archive loading: -+-- Reporter: batterseapower|Owner: Type: bug | Status: new Priority: high |Milestone

Re: [GHC] #4901: Possible bug in GHCi archive loading:

2011-03-29 Thread GHC
#4901: Possible bug in GHCi archive loading: -+-- Reporter: batterseapower|Owner: igloo Type: bug | Status: new Priority: high |Milestone

Re: [GHC] #4901: Possible bug in GHCi archive loading:

2011-03-29 Thread GHC
#4901: Possible bug in GHCi archive loading: -+-- Reporter: batterseapower|Owner: Type: bug | Status: new Priority: high |Milestone

Re: [GHC] #4901: Possible bug in GHCi archive loading:

2011-03-29 Thread GHC
#4901: Possible bug in GHCi archive loading: -+-- Reporter: batterseapower|Owner: Type: bug | Status: new Priority: high |Milestone

Re: [GHC] #4901: Possible bug in GHCi archive loading:

2011-02-13 Thread GHC
#4901: Possible bug in GHCi archive loading: -+-- Reporter: batterseapower|Owner: Type: bug | Status: new Priority: high |Milestone

Re: [GHC] #4901: Possible bug in GHCi archive loading:

2011-01-19 Thread GHC
#4901: Possible bug in GHCi archive loading: -+-- Reporter: batterseapower| Owner: Type: bug | Status: new Priority: normal| Component

[GHC] #4901: Possible bug in GHCi archive loading:

2011-01-18 Thread GHC
#4901: Possible bug in GHCi archive loading: -+-- Reporter: batterseapower| Owner: Type: bug | Status: new Priority: normal| Component

Re: [GHC] #3365: Bug in GHCi, 'impossible' happened

2009-07-11 Thread GHC
#3365: Bug in GHCi, 'impossible' happened ---+ Reporter: guest |Owner: Type: bug | Status: closed Priority: normal |

Re: [GHC] #3366: Bug in GHCi, 'impossible' happened

2009-07-11 Thread GHC
#3366: Bug in GHCi, 'impossible' happened ---+ Reporter: guest |Owner: Type: bug | Status: closed Priority: normal |

[GHC] #3366: Bug in GHCi, 'impossible' happened

2009-07-11 Thread GHC
#3366: Bug in GHCi, 'impossible' happened ---+ Reporter: guest | Owner: Type: bug | Status: new Priority: normal | Component: GHCi Versio

[GHC] #3365: Bug in GHCi, 'impossible' happened

2009-07-11 Thread GHC
#3365: Bug in GHCi, 'impossible' happened ---+ Reporter: guest | Owner: Type: bug | Status: new Priority: normal | Component: GHCi Versio

Re: overflow bug in ghci

2007-05-06 Thread Stefan O'Rear
On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 04:33:22PM +0200, Przemyslaw Uznanski wrote: > I encountered bug in ghci (in version 6.4.2 from gentoo and in latest binary > package 6.6.1 from www.haskell.org ). > Bug is: > *Main> 3492928512*3492928512 > -6246194483767017472 > > I'm usi

overflow bug in ghci

2007-05-06 Thread Przemyslaw Uznanski
I encountered bug in ghci (in version 6.4.2 from gentoo and in latest binary package 6.6.1 from www.haskell.org ). Bug is: *Main> 3492928512*3492928512 -6246194483767017472 I'm using 64bit athlon. (result is correct on 32 bits processors). -- Przemysław

RE: Bug in GHCi

2002-01-25 Thread Simon Marlow
> This is a bug which has been in GHCi from the beginning. This is actually the defined behaviour (see Section 3.3 of the User's Guide: a newly compiled object will only be noticed on a :load, not :reload). But your message made us wonder whether the restriction can be relaxed slightly, and in

Bug in GHCi

2002-01-25 Thread Koen Claessen
Hi, This is a bug which has been in GHCi from the beginning. Bug === GHCi interprets a module while the compiled version is present and up-to-date. Details === When I (for example) have the following module structure: module A where ... module B where import A ... The f

RE: Bug in GHCi

2001-10-31 Thread Simon Marlow
> I discovered two bugs in GHCi. I am using GHC5.02 on > Linux. > > The first bug has been there for some time now. If I start > GHCi with a module `A.hs', which either does not exist > itself, or which includes modules that not exist, then GHCi > terminates with an error message. This is rathe

Bug in GHCi

2001-10-31 Thread Koen Claessen
Hi, I discovered two bugs in GHCi. I am using GHC5.02 on Linux. The first bug has been there for some time now. If I start GHCi with a module `A.hs', which either does not exist itself, or which includes modules that not exist, then GHCi terminates with an error message. This is rather strange

Bug in GHCi

2001-07-09 Thread Koen Claessen
Hello all, I have been using GHCi now for some time. There is one bug that keeps coming back. When I press control-C during the evaluation of an expression, I get back to the prompt, and GHCi says: Interrupted. I make some changes to my files, and type ":r", then GHCi says: Interrupted.

RE: Bug in GHCi

2001-06-12 Thread Julian Seward (Intl Vendor)
| I came across a VERY STRANGE bug in GHCi. It is difficult to pin down. | | I send a couple of modules. Running "main" in the module | called Toggle, generates a file called "system.galf". This | is wrong! | | At line 14, it says "bool(true).". To generate th

RE: Bug in GHCi

2001-06-11 Thread Julian Seward (Intl Vendor)
We fixed a bug last week which could have caused something like this. I'll have a look in more detail. J | -Original Message- | From: Koen Claessen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] | Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 10:06 AM | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Subject: Bug in GHCi | | | Hi

Bug in GHCi

2001-06-11 Thread Koen Claessen
Hi there, I came across a VERY STRANGE bug in GHCi. It is difficult to pin down. I send a couple of modules. Running "main" in the module called Toggle, generates a file called "system.galf". This is wrong! At line 14, it says "bool(true).". To generate this, it