On Jun 09, 2005 Simon Marlow wrote:
On 09 June 2005 11:47, Serge D. Mechveliani wrote:
A difference of 2.5Mb is really very small. If you could show that
the space usage is linear in one case and flat in another, then we
have a problem.
But a ratio 2600 K / 200 K for n = 55000
Dear GHC developers,
Why do you introduce the runghc command for Cabal, while everyting
is done by the `ghc' driver ?
We haveghc -c
ghc --make
...
Cabal is a part of GHC. So, it is natural to continue:
Simon Marlow wrote:
On 10 June 2005 08:58, Serge D. Mechveliani wrote:
Now, I indeed, intend to compare 6.4 to 5.02 on several examples,
downloaded
ghc-5.02.3 and tried to make it with ghc-6.4
Yes, that's unlikely to work.
I was able to install the binaries from
Christian Maeder wrote:
6.4 produces better and faster code than 6.2.2 and 5.04.2 for our
application.
better was supposed to mean smaller binaries
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
On 10 June 2005 11:36, Christian Maeder wrote:
Simon Marlow wrote:
On 10 June 2005 08:58, Serge D. Mechveliani wrote:
Now, I indeed, intend to compare 6.4 to 5.02 on several examples,
downloaded ghc-5.02.3 and tried to make it with ghc-6.4
Yes, that's unlikely to work.
I
I wrote about ghc-5.02.1 taking 13 times less memory than
ghc-6.4 to compute a certain example like merge-sort.
Now, I compare ghc-5.02.3 and ghc-6.4 on the same machine.
The needed time and memory occur the same all right.
The resources grow almost as O(n*log(n)), as expected.
My error
You pick. :)
It can break referential transparency. It can break type safety.
-- Lennart
Andre Pang wrote:
G'day all,
Just looking at the documentation for System.IO.unsafeInterleaveIO,
what exactly is unsafe about it?
___
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 07:32:42PM +0200, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
Andre Pang wrote:
G'day all,
Just looking at the documentation for System.IO.unsafeInterleaveIO,
what exactly is unsafe about it?
You pick. :)
It can break referential transparency. It can break type safety.
On 10/06/2005, at 11:16 AM, Remi Turk wrote:
Are you sure you're not talking about unsafePerformIO?
System.IO.Unsafe.unsafePerformIO:: IO a - a
System.IO.Unsafe.unsafeInterleaveIO :: IO a - IO a
[written to Lennert Augustsson]: yes, I think you misread
unsafeInterleaveIO as
Andre Pang wrote:
On 10/06/2005, at 11:16 AM, Remi Turk wrote:
Are you sure you're not talking about unsafePerformIO?
System.IO.Unsafe.unsafePerformIO:: IO a - a
System.IO.Unsafe.unsafeInterleaveIO :: IO a - IO a
[written to Lennert Augustsson]: yes, I think you misread
Just looking at the documentation for System.IO.unsafeInterleaveIO,
what exactly is unsafe about it?
It can create pure values that trigger side effects during their
evaluation. This can be abused to do IO outside of an IO monad
(actually, hGetContents can already be used for that purpose).
In
On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 01:55:57AM +0200, Thomas Jäger wrote:
Just looking at the documentation for System.IO.unsafeInterleaveIO,
what exactly is unsafe about it?
It can create pure values that trigger side effects during their
evaluation. This can be abused to do IO outside of an IO monad
12 matches
Mail list logo
