Neil Mitchell wrote:
Hi
Thanks to dcoutts, I have now come up with an answer. I don't
understand why it works now, but not before. I do remember than
browsing either Core or STG is not a fun thing to do...
p_System_IO_hGetChar h = trace "i am here" $
unsafePerformIO $ getCharIO h
{-# NO
Hi Simon,
This is clearly a misuse of unsafePerformIO (as I'm sure you're aware). Just
out of interest - what's the context?
I am writing an optimiser for Yhc, doing whole-program optimisation,
with the intention of keeping it fast and high performance. Since
writing out Yhc bytecode would ki
On 5/2/07, Bertram Felgenhauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
I have two patches that should fix this:
...
Thanks, I applied base-install-includes.patch.
(Cabal-fix-installIncludeFiles.patch was already applied according to
darcs.)
However, in order to apply the patches I did a new checkout of
the base library is in a bit of a sad state.
I think I have fixed it. Try pulling (both compiler and libraries) and try
again
S
| -Original Message-
| From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
| Behalf Of Bas van Dijk
| Sent: 03 May 2007 11:32
| To: Bertram Felgenhauer
| Cc:
Hi,
I was wondering if there was an easy way to pretty print the result of the
type checker from GHC. I basically want the format that GHCi spits out,
rather than a type annotation with qualified types. I know I can knock up
a parser that removes the qualifiers, but I was wondering if there was a
On 5/3/07, Simon Peyton-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think I have fixed it...
You did, thanks very much!
GHC now builds and install without any errors, jippy!
Thanks,
Bas van Dijk
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@h
Hello Folks,
Just wondering about this. Please understand I'm not asking why
programs use a lot of stack sometimes, but specifically why is
using a lot of stack (vs. using a lot of heap) generally regarded
as "bad". Or at least it seems that way given that ghc run time
makes distinction between t
On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 16:24 +0100, Adrian Hey wrote:
> Hello Folks,
>
> Just wondering about this. Please understand I'm not asking why
> programs use a lot of stack sometimes, but specifically why is
> using a lot of stack (vs. using a lot of heap) generally regarded
> as "bad". Or at least it se
Duncan Coutts wrote:
On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 16:24 +0100, Adrian Hey wrote:
Hello Folks,
Just wondering about this. Please understand I'm not asking why
programs use a lot of stack sometimes, but specifically why is
using a lot of stack (vs. using a lot of heap) generally regarded
as "bad". Or at
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 05:40:24PM +0100, Adrian Hey wrote:
> Duncan Coutts wrote:
> >On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 16:24 +0100, Adrian Hey wrote:
> >>Hello Folks,
> >>
> >>Just wondering about this. Please understand I'm not asking why
> >>programs use a lot of stack sometimes, but specifically why is
> >
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 04:59:58PM -0700, John Meacham wrote:
> I believe it is because a stack cannot be garbage collected, and must be
> traversed as roots for every garbage collection. I don't think there are
> any issues with a huge stack per se, but it does not play nice with
> garbage collect
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 05:36:45PM -0700, Brandon Michael Moore wrote:
> On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 04:59:58PM -0700, John Meacham wrote:
> > I believe it is because a stack cannot be garbage collected, and must be
> > traversed as roots for every garbage collection. I don't think there are
> > any is
12 matches
Mail list logo
