On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 11:12:06AM +, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
> Ideally, if ghc were implemented in something closer to Haskell'98,
> it would be possible to double-bootstrap up from gcc -> nhc98 ->
> ghc unregisterised -> ghc registerised, on almost any new platform.
> But the amount of work re
Simon Marlow wrote:
On 22 February 2005 19:37, Duncan Coutts wrote:
Excellent! Thanks a lot.
Any hint as to when the next Haddock release will be?
Maybe when I've got this GHC release out of the way and my hair has
grown back :-S
Before we do a release, I think two issues should be solved IMHO:
Wolfgang Thaller wrote:
Brian Strand wrote:
Not being intimately familiar with ghc internals, I don't know how
much work this is, and whether the implementation cost exceeds the
benefit (easier installation for Haskell novices like me).
My guess is that for GHC, it won't work; the .hc files are r
Jens Petersen wrote:
Brian Strand wrote:
Unfortunately I'm still stuck on x86-64, since there are no "official"
binaries to bootstrap from on that platform. But at least I have a
ghc to play with while waiting for x86-64 to become official.
There is a x86_64 build already in Fedora Haskell.
Per
On 24 February 2005 02:38, Wolfgang Thaller wrote:
> So maybe x86-Linux needs a ghc binary with as few library dependencies
> as possible, to facilitate bootstrapping on different Linux distros?
That's a good idea. GHCi doesn't work if the GHC binary is linked with
-static, so we'll have to make
On 24 February 2005 11:35, Christian Maeder wrote:
> I've made progress with ghc HEAD under solaris 8. In fact I could
> successfully install a ghc-6.5 compiler that was able to compile a
> couple of files (including "Hello World")
>
> But on one file (by chance HughesPJ.hs with an unqualified mo
On 24 February 2005 14:47, Carsten Schultz wrote:
> The real performance problem propbably is not O(n) vs. O(n*log n) but
> slow String operations in general. After all, String is a lazy list
> of Char. Have a look at the thread mentioned above, possibly Simon's
> version has become fast again,
On 24 February 2005 11:12, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
> Ideally, if ghc were implemented in something closer to Haskell'98,
> it would be possible to double-bootstrap up from gcc -> nhc98 ->
> ghc unregisterised -> ghc registerised, on almost any new platform.
> But the amount of work required to 98-i
Hi Alson!
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 07:40:49AM -0500, Alson Kemp wrote:
> All,
> In order to teach myself Haskell, I've been tinkering with some of
> the Shootout (http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/great/) programs.
Good idea.
> Substantially improved the Mandelbrot program. Then started t
All,
In order to teach myself Haskell, I've been tinkering with some of
the Shootout (http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/great/) programs.
Substantially improved the Mandelbrot program. Then started to work on the
Spellcheck program, since Haskell seemed to do quite poorly at it. However,
Hi
I can report success on compiling latest CVS on Mac OS X including
stage 2 with ghci support. (greencard does not compile, but that's not
a problem for ghc to be compiled it seems.)
Now that I have the compiler up, I notice that types are not reported
as before. Instead of nice t,t', etc, I
Hi Simon and solaris GHC users,
I've made progress with ghc HEAD under solaris 8. In fact I could
successfully install a ghc-6.5 compiler that was able to compile a
couple of files (including "Hello World")
But on one file (by chance HughesPJ.hs with an unqualified module name)
I got a "Bus Err
Just a quick comment on a couple of things Brian Strand writes:
> Or is ghc/Haskell established enough that
> the existence of some Haskell compiler is taken for granted nowadays?
Ghc is not written in pure Haskell - it is written in Ghc Haskell,
i.e. it uses many extensions and internal librarie
13 matches
Mail list logo
