On 09 June 2004 20:09, Christian Maeder wrote:
> I wrote:
>>> since version 6.2 we have 2 binary distributions for (generic)
>>> linux: for glibc 2.2 and glibc 2.3
>>
>> Maybe this is no longer necessary. I've produced an installation
>> (under glibc 2.2) that runs under glibc 2.2 and glibc 2.3.
I wrote:
since version 6.2 we have 2 binary distributions for (generic) linux:
for glibc 2.2 and glibc 2.3
Maybe this is no longer necessary. I've produced an installation (under
glibc 2.2) that runs under glibc 2.2 and glibc 2.3.
I've now also successfully installed ghc-6.2.1 from source under gl
Volker Stolz wrote (snipped):
The functions are C89, so they should be present *somewhere* in libc
anywhere.
Yes, you're right. Normally isspace and friends are used as macros,
but ANSI C requires them to be also available as functions so they
must be exported that way.
Therefore if you don't impo
Volker Stolz wrote:
> > > What is "ctype.h" good for?
> >
> > A good question. Its only use seems to be in
> > ghc/rts/RtsFlags.c where it is used for functions
> > like isdigit and isspace for decoding the RTS flags.
> > Maybe it should be retired altogether.
> >
> > I'm rather puzzled how this
In local.glasgow-haskell-users, you wrote:
> Christian Maeder wrote:
> > What is "ctype.h" good for?
>
> A good question. Its only use seems to be in
> ghc/rts/RtsFlags.c where it is used for functions
> like isdigit and isspace for decoding the RTS flags.
> Maybe it should be retired altogether.
Christian Maeder wrote:
As also Volker Stolz suggested I've changed, after calling ./configure,
a line in "mk/config.h" from
#define HAVE_CTYPE_H 1
to
/* #undef HAVE_CTYPE_H */
with
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -> rpm -q glibc
glibc-2.3.3-97
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -> rpm -q gcc
gcc-3.3.3-41
"make" (in ghc-6.2.1)
Christian Maeder wrote:
> What is "ctype.h" good for?
A good question. Its only use seems to be in
ghc/rts/RtsFlags.c where it is used for functions
like isdigit and isspace for decoding the RTS flags.
Maybe it should be retired altogether.
I'm rather puzzled how this works if ctype.h isn't
there
Christian Maeder wrote:
since version 6.2 we have 2 binary distributions for (generic) linux:
for glibc 2.2 and glibc 2.3
Maybe this is no longer necessary. I've produced an installation (under
glibc 2.2) that runs under glibc 2.2 and glibc 2.3.
As also Volker Stolz suggested I've changed, after
2004-06-08T14:17:22 Christian Maeder:
> since version 6.2 we have 2 binary distributions for (generic)
> linux: for glibc 2.2 and glibc 2.3
If it were possible to construct and ship a statically-linked ghc,
that might be ideal; it should be portable across a wide range of
Linuxes, regardless of wh
