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 libraries
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 Error
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
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 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 to
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-ify ghc
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 module
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
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.
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
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:
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 required
12 matches
Mail list logo
