Re: GHC driver behaviour switch

2006-06-22 Thread kyra
Simon Marlow wrote: To fix this properly we should have a C++ compiler phase in DriverPipeline, it wouldn't be too hard. Care to submit a bug report with this info? Submitted. ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org h

Re: GHC driver behaviour switch

2006-06-22 Thread Simon Marlow
kyra wrote: GHC HEAD: SysTools.runCc dflags ( -- force the C compiler to interpret this file as C when -- compiling .hc files, by adding the -x c option. -- Also useful for plain .c files, just in case GHC saw a -- -x c option. [ SysTools.Option "-x", SysTools.Option "c"] ++

Re: GHC driver behaviour switch

2006-06-22 Thread kyra
Duncan Coutts wrote: On Thu, 2006-06-22 at 17:54 +0300, kyra wrote: With GHC 6.4.x I was able to use a ghc driver to compile .cpp sources. Now, with GHC HEAD I cannot. GHC HEAD now ALWAYS enforces "treat as .c" option. Just wondering, you're using ghc to compile C++ sources? Is there

Re: GHC driver behaviour switch

2006-06-22 Thread Duncan Coutts
On Thu, 2006-06-22 at 17:54 +0300, kyra wrote: > With GHC 6.4.x I was able to use a ghc driver to compile .cpp sources. > Now, with GHC HEAD I cannot. GHC HEAD now ALWAYS enforces "treat as .c" > option. Just wondering, you're using ghc to compile C++ sources? Is there any reason for doing that

GHC driver behaviour switch

2006-06-22 Thread kyra
With GHC 6.4.x I was able to use a ghc driver to compile .cpp sources. Now, with GHC HEAD I cannot. GHC HEAD now ALWAYS enforces "treat as .c" option. Let's compare "DriverPipeline.hs". GHC 6.4.x: let langopt | hcc = [ SysTools.Option "-x", SysTools.Option "c"] | otherwise = [ ] S

Re: FFI: number of worker threads?

2006-06-22 Thread Simon Marlow
Seth Kurtzberg wrote: Thanks for the info. I don't compare thread IDs. At the moment I merely print out the thread ID in a trace message. Shortly I will be using the thread ID when a need arises to kill a thread. It sounds like the rollover is harmless for these situations. When you talk

Re: FFI: number of worker threads?

2006-06-22 Thread Simon Marlow
Li, Peng wrote: On 6/21/06, Simon Peyton-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: New worker threads are spawned on as needed. You'll need as many of them as you have simultaneously-blocked foreign calls. If you have 2000 simultaneously-blocked foreign calls, you'll need 2000 OS threads to support the

Re: FFI: number of worker threads?

2006-06-22 Thread Simon Marlow
Tony Finch wrote: On Wed, 21 Jun 2006, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote: New worker threads are spawned on as needed. You'll need as many of them as you have simultaneously-blocked foreign calls. If you have 2000 simultaneously-blocked foreign calls, you'll need 2000 OS threads to support them, which