Hello,
On Monday 24 November 2008 23:48, Barney Stratford wrote:
> > The heading seems to be: Your build is missing it's required GMP (GNU
> > Multiple Precision) library
> No, I have GMP installed, and it's correctly compiling against it. The
> issue isn't that these symbols are missing altogethe
> The heading seems to be: Your build is missing it's required GMP (GNU
> Multiple Precision) library
No, I have GMP installed, and it's correctly compiling against it. The
issue isn't that these symbols are missing altogether, but rather that
there's something wrong with them. It looks to me like
Hello,
On Monday 24 November 2008 23:15, Barney Stratford wrote:
> There's good news and bad news. The good news is that the compilation of
> my shiny almost-new GHC is complete. The bad news is, it won't link.
> It's grumbling about
>
> ld:
> /System/Fink/src/fink.build/ghc-6.8.2-1/ghc-6.8.2/rt
There's good news and bad news. The good news is that the compilation of
my shiny almost-new GHC is complete. The bad news is, it won't link.
It's grumbling about
ld:
/System/Fink/src/fink.build/ghc-6.8.2-1/ghc-6.8.2/rts/libHSrts.a(PrimOps.o)
has external relocation entries in non-writable sectio
> "Simon" == Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Simon> Colin Paul Adams wrote:
>>> "Simon" == Simon Peyton-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> writes:
>>
Simon> It looks as if you are somehow failing to link your binary
Simon> with package 'base'. (Are you usin
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Daniil Elovkov
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter Hercek wrote:
>>
>> Daniil Elovkov wrote:
>>>
>>> A refinement of :tracelocal could be :tracedirect (or something) that
>>> would save the history not anywhere within the given function but only
>>> within parents, s
fun x y =
let f1 = ... (f2 x) ... -- f1 calls f2
f2 x = x * 2
in case x of
1 -> f2 0
_ -> f2 (f1 y)
g x = let z = (some complex computation) in z `div` x
main = print (g (fun 1 2))
This is a classical example of why laziness gets in the way of
debugging. Now, when (f2 0) gets fina
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 1:56 AM, Colin Paul Adams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can't use the backspace key, or arrow keys in ghci (6.10.1) as i
> would normally expect to on any program on Linux.
>
Did you compile ghc yourself or download the distribution from
somewhere? If you're compiling it
> "Judah" == Judah Jacobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Judah> somewhere? If you're compiling it yourself, you'll need to
Judah> first install Fedora's libedit-devel package.
Judah> Hope that helps, -Judah
It did. It's working fine now. Thanks.
--
Colin Adams
Preston Lancashire
I can now confirm that 6.2 can, in fact, bootstrap 6.8.2 (with the
corrections to those hi-boots), although I've still not got the build to
complete. If anyone wants to see the patch file, then let me know and
I'll send it when I've ironed out the last creases.
Thanks to all those who helped out.
Peter Hercek wrote:
Daniil Elovkov wrote:
A refinement of :tracelocal could be :tracedirect (or something) that
would save the history not anywhere within the given function but only
within parents, so to say. For example,
This looks like what I thought of as searching for values in dynamic
> "Judah" == Judah Jacobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Judah> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 1:56 AM, Colin Paul Adams
Judah> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I can't use the backspace key, or arrow keys in ghci (6.10.1)
>> as i would normally expect to on any program on Linux.
>>
Daniil Elovkov wrote:
A refinement of :tracelocal could be :tracedirect (or something) that
would save the history not anywhere within the given function but only
within parents, so to say. For example,
This looks like what I thought of as searching for values in dynamic
stack (explained in m
Pepe Iborra wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Peter Hercek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Maybe what Claus means is that he would like to see the dynamic
stack and be able to traverse it and at each location in the
dynamic stack he could investigate the free variables in the
expression (cor
Hello
I think apart from some other notes the concern here, as started by Peter when
he joined the thread, can be concisely summarised like this:
it would be good if the set of bound variables were equal to the set of
variables syntactically in scope
Apparently, Simon has already explained th
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Peter Hercek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Simon Marlow wrote:
>>
>> Claus Reinke wrote:
>>>
>>> Perhaps someone could help me to understand how the debugger is supposed
>>> to be used, as I tend to have this problem, too:
>>>
>>> - when I'm at a break point, I'd rea
Did you try giving a type signature to the (entire) case expression, as I
suggested? That should do it.
Perhaps I don't understand the suggestion, but for me the only way I could fix
it was to put all the pattern matches into local functions with type
signatures. I can show you the diffs if yo
Claus Reinke wrote:
f x y z | x$ /cygdrive/d/fptools/ghc/ghc/stage2-inplace/ghc.exe --interactive
Debug.hs -ignore-dot-ghci
GHCi, version 6.11.20081122: http://www.haskell.org/ghc/ :? for help
Loading package ghc-prim ... linking ... done.
Loading package integer ... linking ... done.
Load
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 12:23 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>In my case, we had rigid type signatures all over the place. The wiki
> document says that the type must be rigid at the point of the match. I
> guess that's what we were violating. If the code I posted isn't su
- when I'm at a break point, I'd really like to see the current scope
or, if that is too expensive, the next enclosing scope, in full
(not only would that tell me what instantiation of my code I'm in,
it would also seem necessary if I want to reconstruct what the
current expression is)
Simon Marlow wrote:
Claus Reinke wrote:
Perhaps someone could help me to understand how the debugger is
supposed to be used, as I tend to have this problem, too:
- when I'm at a break point, I'd really like to see the current scope
or, if that is too expensive, the next enclosing scope, in
Ah hum. We probably have not compiled GHC 6.8 with 6.2 for some time. Worse,
we don't even clearly document what the oldest version is that should bootstrap
any given version.
Ian: could you extend the building guide
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Building (perhaps the "what tools y
> "Simon" == Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Simon> Colin Paul Adams wrote:
>> I can't use the backspace key, or arrow keys in ghci (6.10.1)
>> as i would normally expect to on any program on Linux.
>>
>> Is this connected with the readline/editline/haskelline deb
Barney Stratford wrote:
I'm trying to compile GHC 6.8.2 using my existing GHC 6.2, but the
typechecker refuses to compile. The problem seems to be that the hi-boot
files in compiler/typecheck contain some incorrect type signatures. I've
fixed most of them, but TcMatches.hi-boot-6 has slightly stu
Colin Paul Adams wrote:
I can't use the backspace key, or arrow keys in ghci (6.10.1) as i
would normally expect to on any program on Linux.
Is this connected with the readline/editline/haskelline debate I have
observed recently?
You seem to be encountering an unusually severe reaction to the
Colin Paul Adams wrote:
"Simon" == Simon Peyton-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Simon> It looks as if you are somehow failing to link your binary
Simon> with package 'base'. (Are you using 'ghc' as your linker;
Simon> you should be.) But others are better than I at this kind
Simon Marlow wrote:
I think it's a good idea to avoid variant licenses, especially in
libraries. We want it to be easy for someone to know whether they're
complying with the licenses for the libraries they depend on, and if
those licenses depend on choices made at the time the library was bui
Duncan Coutts wrote:
On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 14:01 +, Simon Marlow wrote:
I propose we do this:
* extract the GHCi UI from the GHC package, put it in the ghc-bin package
(maybe we should rename this package to ghc-main or something). This
removes the editline and bytestring (for n
Claus Reinke wrote:
>> It is supposed to show only free variables in the selected expression.
I'm sure I had cases when I was able to access variables which were
not free in the selected expression but which would have been in
scope if used in the selected expression. The values available se
I'm trying to compile GHC 6.8.2 using my existing GHC 6.2, but the
typechecker refuses to compile. The problem seems to be that the hi-boot
files in compiler/typecheck contain some incorrect type signatures. I've
fixed most of them, but TcMatches.hi-boot-6 has slightly stumped me. As
it stands, it
>> It is supposed to show only free variables in the selected expression.
I'm sure I had cases when I was able to access variables which were
not free in the selected expression but which would have been in
scope if used in the selected expression. The values available seemed
correct (contrar
I can't use the backspace key, or arrow keys in ghci (6.10.1) as i
would normally expect to on any program on Linux.
Is this connected with the readline/editline/haskelline debate I have
observed recently?
--
Colin Adams
Preston Lancashire
___
Glasgow-h
Peter Hercek wrote:
Daniil Elovkov wrote:
I'd like to know, how do ghc developers and users feel about the
debugger?
Sometimes it is better/quicker than "printf debugging" :)
Now I see it mess up the list of bindings in a funny way. For example,
in a previous trace session I had a variable,
> "Simon" == Simon Peyton-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Simon> It looks as if you are somehow failing to link your binary
Simon> with package 'base'. (Are you using 'ghc' as your linker;
Simon> you should be.) But others are better than I at this kind
Simon> of stuff.
I h
It looks as if you are somehow failing to link your binary with package 'base'.
(Are you using 'ghc' as your linker; you should be.) But others are better
than I at this kind of stuff.
Simon
| -Original Message-
| From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:glasgow-haskell-users-
| [EMAIL PROTECTE
In my case, we had rigid type signatures all over the place. The wiki document
says that the type must be rigid at the point of the match. I guess that's
what we were violating. If the code I posted isn't supposed to type check then
I would like to report, as user feedback, that GADTs have be
36 matches
Mail list logo
