Scott Michel wrote,
> Are you also planning a LLVM backend for ghc, in a general sense, or just for
> the accelerated work you're doing? It seems to me that ghc itself could be
> well served with a LLVM backend, especially if one relies on the JIT mode.
> That could help identify code paths in t
In my last letter I wrote about the prossibility for the GHC
developers to require a keyword in any pragma, "for future".
I thought that pragma is a matter of the GHC language extension.
But if it is of the Haskell standard, then, again I am sorry!
Regards,
-
Serge Mechveliani
On Sun, Feb 07, 2010 at 02:16:11PM +0100, Daniel Fischer wrote:
> Am Sonntag 07 Februar 2010 14:05:48 schrieb Serge D. Mechveliani:
> > On Sun, Feb 07, 2010 at 01:22:07PM +0100, Daniel Fischer wrote:
> > > Am Sonntag 07 Februar 2010 13:06:14 schrieb Serge D. Mechveliani:
> > > > I am sorry,
> > > >
Am Sonntag 07 Februar 2010 14:05:48 schrieb Serge D. Mechveliani:
> On Sun, Feb 07, 2010 at 01:22:07PM +0100, Daniel Fischer wrote:
> > Am Sonntag 07 Februar 2010 13:06:14 schrieb Serge D. Mechveliani:
> > > I am sorry,
> > > indeed, ghc-6.12.1 warns of Unrecognised pragma on {-# "foo"
> > > #
On Sun, Feb 07, 2010 at 01:22:07PM +0100, Daniel Fischer wrote:
> Am Sonntag 07 Februar 2010 13:06:14 schrieb Serge D. Mechveliani:
> > I am sorry,
> > indeed, ghc-6.12.1 warns of Unrecognised pragma on {-# "foo" #-}.
> > I have just missed this warning.
> >
> > The next question is: why it i
Am Sonntag 07 Februar 2010 13:06:14 schrieb Serge D. Mechveliani:
> I am sorry,
> indeed, ghc-6.12.1 warns of Unrecognised pragma on {-# "foo" #-}.
> I have just missed this warning.
>
> The next question is: why it is a warning and not an error break?
Because it might be a valid pragma for
I am sorry,
indeed, ghc-6.12.1 warns of Unrecognised pragma on {-# "foo" #-}.
I have just missed this warning.
The next question is: why it is a warning and not an error break?
-
Serge Mechveliani
mech...@botik.ru
On Sun, Feb 07, 2010 at 10:56:53AM +, Ian Lynagh wrot
