Re: static_wrapper imports in the FFI

2010-03-17 Thread Simon Marlow
On 16/03/10 23:38, Iavor Diatchki wrote: Hello, On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Simon Marlowmarlo...@gmail.com wrote: It seems hard to justify adding this to GHC, since it's really just syntactic convenience for a particular case. Traditionally syntactic sugar for FFI declarations has been

Re: Feedback request: priority queues in containers

2010-03-17 Thread Simon Marlow
On 17/03/2010 00:17, Louis Wasserman wrote: I tested, and this implementation actually performs better if the spine is maintained lazily, so we'll test that version. May I request that, unless there's a significant speedup from using a strict spine, that you use a lazy spine where possible.

Re: Feedback request: priority queues in containers

2010-03-17 Thread Roman Leshchinskiy
On 17/03/2010, at 03:16, Louis Wasserman wrote: I'm not willing to do this sort of typeclass wrapper thing, primarily because nothing else in containers does -- even though we might have a Mapping type class that handles both IntMap and Map, we don't. I'm inclined to let that design

Re: static_wrapper imports in the FFI

2010-03-17 Thread Tyson Whitehead
On March 16, 2010 20:01:32 Iavor Diatchki wrote: Optionally disabling executable heap blocks would be a separate patch. As far as I know, the only reason that the heap is executable is to support the adjustor thunks used to implement wrapper imports. The static_wrapper patch provides a way

Re: static_wrapper imports in the FFI

2010-03-17 Thread Iavor Diatchki
Hello, My point was that in many cases we can simply avoid run-time code generation, rather then trying to work around the system's SE Linux policy. While I believe that using the foreign export gives us the same functional behavior, the generated code is certainly not the same. I wrote a small