On 09 February 2005 20:03, Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 01:11:34PM -, Simon Marlow wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> For the forthcoming 6.4 release, we'd like to get a rough idea of
>> download statistics, at least from haskell.org. Both Simon & I are
>> too busy/lazy (delete as
Good morning,
gcc uses a different convention from the Microsoft environment when it
comes to laying out fields in C structs, in particular bit fields. Can I
pass the -optc--mms-bitfields to ghc when it compiles via C without
negative effect?
This flag is not implicit at the moment which I assum
We are finally at the release candidate stage for GHC 6.4. Snapshots
with versions 6.4.20050209 and later should be considered release
candidates for 6.4.
Source and Linux binary distributions are avaiable here:
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/dist/stable/dist/
Please test if you're able to, and g
On 09 February 2005 08:53, Axel Simon wrote:
> gcc uses a different convention from the Microsoft environment when it
> comes to laying out fields in C structs, in particular bit fields.
> Can I pass the -optc--mms-bitfields to ghc when it compiles via C
> without negative effect?
>
> This flag i
"Simon Marlow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We are finally at the release candidate stage for GHC 6.4. Snapshots
> with versions 6.4.20050209 and later should be considered release
> candidates for 6.4.
Using: ghc-6.4.20050209-i386-unknown-linux.tar.bz2
$ cat hello.hs
main = putStrLn "
On 10 February 2005 13:31, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
> "Simon Marlow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> We are finally at the release candidate stage for GHC 6.4. Snapshots
>> with versions 6.4.20050209 and later should be considered release
>> candidates for 6.4.
>
> Using: ghc-6.4.20050209-i386-u
On 10 February 2005 13:40, Simon Marlow wrote:
> On 10 February 2005 13:31, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
>
>> "Simon Marlow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> We are finally at the release candidate stage for GHC 6.4.
>>> Snapshots with versions 6.4.20050209 and later should be considered
>>> releas
On 09 February 2005 13:32, Peter Simons wrote:
> I have an interesting problem. There are two versions of the
> HsDNS package installed right now:
>
> $ ghc-pkg list
> | /usr/local/ghc-current/lib/ghc-6.5/package.conf:
> | rts-1.0, [...] (hsdns-2005-02-04),
> | hsdns-2005-02-08
>
>
"Simon Marlow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We are finally at the release candidate stage for GHC 6.4.
> Please test if you're able to, and give us feedback.
In versions 5.00 <= ghc <= 6.2.2, the result of
ghc -v 2>&1 | head -2
was something like
Glasgow Haskell Compiler, Version 6.2.
On 10 February 2005 15:13, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
> "Simon Marlow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> We are finally at the release candidate stage for GHC 6.4.
>> Please test if you're able to, and give us feedback.
>
> In versions 5.00 <= ghc <= 6.2.2, the result of
>
> ghc -v 2>&1 | head -
"Simon Marlow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok, fixed. The right way to get the location of the package.conf file
> is to ask ghc-pkg, BTW. In fact, the right way is not to know the
> location of package.conf at all, but to use ghc-pkg to query its
> contents. The contents of package.conf is p
On 10 February 2005 15:36, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
> "Simon Marlow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Ok, fixed. The right way to get the location of the package.conf
>> file is to ask ghc-pkg, BTW. In fact, the right way is not to know
>> the location of package.conf at all, but to use ghc-pkg t
"Simon Marlow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > and how do you find out what $libdir refers to...?
>
> ghc --print-libdir
Cool. Will fix hmake to use it.
Regards,
Malcolm
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http
On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 11:13:36PM +0100, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> Package: ghc6
> Version: 6.2.2-2
>
> /usr/lib/libpthread.so (comes from libc6-dev 2.3.2.ds1-20) is a GNU
> linker script, not a shared object. This breaks ghci.
Known problem:
http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/glasgow-haskell-
$ ghc-pkg-6.4.20050209 --show-package=base --field=import_dirs
["/usr/malcolm/local/lib/ghc-6.4.20050209/imports"]
yet
$ ghc-pkg-6.4.20050209 --show-package=base-1.0 --field=import_dirs
ghc-pkg: cannot find package base-1.0
$ ghc-pkg-6.4.20050209 --list-packages
/usr/mal
On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 13:11 +, Simon Marlow wrote:
> Please test if you're able to, and give us feedback.
I've noticed that running main of the attached code, using Proxy
data-types to simulate context parameters (see previous email) still
sends something into an infinite loop; is this my faul
On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 16:58 +, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 11:13:36PM +0100, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> > Package: ghc6
> > Version: 6.2.2-2
> >
> > /usr/lib/libpthread.so (comes from libc6-dev 2.3.2.ds1-20) is a GNU
> > linker script, not a shared object. This breaks ghci.
Simon Marlow writes:
> The general syntax of package ids is:
>pkgid ::= pkg ('-' version)?
>pkg ::= (alphanum|'-')+
>version ::= (digit+) ('.' digit+)* ('-' alphanum+)*
Thanks. I gave my package the version "hsdns-0.0-2005-02-10"
and that fixed the problem.
> Perhaps we should
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 07:00:47PM +0100, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>
> > What is your particular problem?
>
> Running Darcs under ghci.
This seems to work for me (at least in as much as ghci loads and
FastPackedString.lengthPS (FastPackedString.packString "Foo")
says 3):
rm -rf .
When -fglasgow-exts is on, (#) no longer seems to be recognized. (I get
a parse error.) however # works fine as an infix operator.
John
--
John Meacham - ârepetae.netâjohnâ
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.or
There seems to have been a change in how packages are found which is
biting me.
I have a module called PackedString, which used to be fine, as ghc's
packedstring was called Data.PackedString. however with ghc 6.4 I am
getting the error:
Atom.hs:3:0:
Failed to load interface for `PackedString
21 matches
Mail list logo