Sigbjorn's latest patches for HDirect seem to get rid of the
stdcall/_stdcall/__stdcall confusion, but the installation is still
overly complicated, see e.g. the attached hdirect.spec. It would be
nice if every FOO \elem {ghc,happy,green-card,hdirect} could be built
and installed generically via:
Michael Weber wrote:
> [...] maybe the *BSD, OSF, and Windows folks should do the above
> tests, too...
This seems to work on Alphas, too:
--
$ uname -srm
OSF1 V3.2 alpha
$ echo TEST | gcc -E -DTEST=works -
# 1 ""
works
$ echo TEST | /lib/cpp -DTES
On Tue, Jul 13, 1999 at 17:47:27 +0900, Manuel M. T. Chakravarty wrote:
> Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
>
It isn't strictly speaking hardcoded, it's set up when you configure a
binary distribution. So if you move gcc or install a new version, you need
to re-install ghc.
Simon Marlow writes:
>
> We also like to get as clean a cpp as possible - if you go through gcc -E
> you get a whole bunch of symbols defined,
The -undef option gets rid of most of those.
> and cpp gets passed the -lang-c flag (whatever that means, but it
> looks pretty scary).
The other possi
> Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > - mkdependHS and friends need a cpp that accepts input on
> > stdin, and files that don't end in ".c". That rules out
> > 'gcc -E'.
>
> Use `gcc -E -` then.
Good point :-)
We also like to get as clean a cpp as possible - if you
Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> - mkdependHS and friends need a cpp that accepts input on
> stdin, and files that don't end in ".c". That rules out
> 'gcc -E'.
Use `gcc -E -` then.
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Winner, Internatio
Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
> > > It isn't strictly speaking hardcoded, it's set up when you
> > configure a
> > > binary distribution. So if you move gcc or install a new
> > version, you need
> > > to re-install ghc.
> >
> > I understand the technical issues, but the problem is
> > It isn't strictly speaking hardcoded, it's set up when you
> configure a
> > binary distribution. So if you move gcc or install a new
> version, you need
> > to re-install ghc.
>
> I understand the technical issues, but the problem is that
> installing/compiling GHC from source is a *pain*
Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
> > Please, can somebody explain, why the preprocessor is
> > hardcoded in the GHC
> > perl scripts? IIRC ghc (the perlscript itself) doesn't even reference
> > $RAWCPP. mkdependHS and hscpp do, but why an absolute path
> > and this obscure
> > "-iprefix"
Sven Panne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
> Just an aside: Due to some pushing on my part Hugs98 made it onto
> the SuSE distribution (6.2),
/me praises Sven.
How about the Haskell 98 report? I made it into an RPM:
ftp://greyarea.is.tsukuba.ac.jp/pub/jibunmaki/src/haskell-doc-98-1.src.rpm
Wou
Sven Panne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
> [ redirected to ghu ]
>
> "Frank A. Christoph" wrote:
> > I wrote:
> > > * A more pressing point is that GHC is tied to x86 machines at
> > >moment, see e.g. MBlock.c or Adjustor.c.
> > It is? I thought these were only relevant for the FFI.
>
> OK, I
11 matches
Mail list logo