I notice that ghci is loading integer-simple before loading base. This at
least explains why it cannot find a symbol from the base package - it hasn't
been loaded yet. So the question is why does integer-simple use any function
from the base package at all? I'm fairly sure that the
-in package integer-simple mapped to integer-simple-0.1.0.0-inplace
wired-in package base mapped to base-4.4.0.0-inplace
wired-in package rts mapped to builtin_rts
wired-in package template-haskell mapped to template-haskell-2.6.0.0-inplace
wired-in package dph-seq not found.
wired-in package
... done.
Loading package integer-simple ... linking ... ghc:
/usr/local/ghc/7.2.0.20110728/lib/ghc-7.2.0.20110728/integer-simple-0.1.0.0/
HSinteger-simple-0.1.0.0.o: unknown symbol
`base_ControlziExceptionziBase_patError_info'
ghc: unable to load package `integer-simple'
This has
y has any bright ideas I will be happy to try them out.
Cheers,
Chris
-Original Message-
From: Ian Lynagh [mailto:ig...@earth.li]
Sent: 29 July 2011 21:42
To: Chris Dornan
Cc: glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
Subject: Re: integer-simple
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 05:51:23PM +0100, Chris Dor
Thanks Daniel.
I have just now built the 7.2.1 RC1 with integer-simple on CentOS 6 with the
same failure.
It doesn't surprise me -- there is clearly something in my setup that is
causing this problem.
But it's good to get it confirmed -- thanks!
Chris
-Original Message
On Friday 29 July 2011, 18:51:23, Chris Dornan wrote:
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> I am still having difficulty getting a plain GHC build with
> INTEGER_LIBRARY = integer-simple. (I outlined my problem here yesterday
> <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/glasgow-haskell-users/2
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 05:51:23PM +0100, Chris Dornan wrote:
>
> But when I repeat with INTEGER_LIBRARY = integer-simple (on quick test)
>
> GHCi, version 6.12.3: http://www.haskell.org/ghc/ :? for help
Note that 6.12.3 is quite old now, and neither that branch or the 7.0
bran
Hi All,
I am still having difficulty getting a plain GHC build with INTEGER_LIBRARY
= integer-simple. (I outlined my problem here yesterday
<http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/glasgow-haskell-users/2011-July/020631.htm
l> .)
I suspected my failure to get a vanilla build (with GMP)
/local/ghc/6.12.3-is/lib/ghc-6.12.3/integer-simple-0.1.0.0/HSinteger-sim
ple-0.1.0.0.o: unknown symbol `base_ControlziExceptionziBase_patError_info'
Loading package integer-simple ... linking ... ghc: unable to load package
`integer-simple'
My MO is to
. get binary GHC packag
ell.org
> Dato: Tir, 23. feb 2010 00:04
> Emne: Re: integer-simple by default
>
> I wrote:
> >> As another data point, Python has also re-invented the GMP
> >> wheel, likely for the same licensing reasons. They have
> >> been using a simple implementation of
I wrote:
>> As another data point, Python has also re-invented the GMP
>> wheel, likely for the same licensing reasons. They have
>> been using a simple implementation of Karatsuba
>> multiplication for years. I have never heard of anyone
>> complaining about it
Greg Fitzgerald wrote:
> Looks like
I think it would be great to have a benchmark, to test Integer
performance at various implementations. Perhaps it could test speed of
Int, Int64, Int32 as well (for computations that fit within them). I
suppose tight numeric loops are key to measuring performance in a useful
way (except for i
> As another data point, Python has also re-invented the GMP
> wheel, likely for the same licensing reasons. They have
> been using a simple implementation of Karatsuba
> multiplication for years. I have never heard of anyone
> complaining about it
Thanks for the data point.
Looks like they swapp
Isaac Dupree:
>> We could try to find out how large Integers get, in practice, in
>> existing Haskell code (this may be difficult to find out).
Daniel Fischer wrote:
> Just as a data-point, my code rarely exceeds 128 bits (at least, beyond
> that performance isn't so important anymore).
And Danie
to
instrument integer-simple to report the sizes of integers it handles.
For example, if you use Rational, (even toRational/fromRational), you
might be handling Integers somewhat larger than you thought you were.
And this could also report on how often the integers get that large.
(Also it&#
Am Sonntag 21 Februar 2010 19:56:54 schrieb Isaac Dupree:
> We could try to find out how large Integers get, in practice, in
> existing Haskell code (this may be difficult to find out).
Just as a data-point, my code rarely exceeds 128 bits (at least, beyond
that performance isn't so important any
trew
unboxed ints all over the place, or is it fine to skip this and count on
the optimizer?)
I think relying on the optimiser is OK, but don't forget that you don't
have the standard (+) etc.
oh okay, interesting. I think I'd best start by finding out where
integer
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 02:56:53PM -0500, Isaac Dupree wrote:
> On 02/20/10 14:37, Ian Lynagh wrote:
>> There's also HIntegerByInt:
>> http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/2007-August/007909.html
>> although it would need to be changed to user lower level types etc.
>
> that's true, (I w
* Greg Fitzgerald:
>> You can dynamically link libgmp on windows. That might be easier:
>
> Do you know if the dynamic link escape hatch has ever held up in
> court?
GMP is LGPL, so if you use an official build or a private build from
unmodified sources, all you need to do is to ship the sources
On 02/20/10 14:37, Ian Lynagh wrote:
There's also HIntegerByInt:
http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/2007-August/007909.html
although it would need to be changed to user lower level types etc.
that's true, (I wrote it), the current form uses a list-based
implementation with a lot o
license is obviously at least somewhat simpler
for lawyers.
Is there any reason we
shouldn't attempt to make integer-simple the default?
If you know that none of your code or libraries are using any
particularly large integers [how would you know, though?], then it
should perform alright. G
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 11:11:15AM -0800, Greg Fitzgerald wrote:
>
> In any case, giving GMP the boot alleviates any
> licensing concerns, makes the GHC build a little simpler, and allows
> users to create standalone executables. Is there any reason we
> shouldn't attempt to
the GHC build a little simpler, and allows
users to create standalone executables. Is there any reason we
shouldn't attempt to make integer-simple the default?
-Greg
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.
garious:
> Static linking to GMP on Windows is sending me towards a bunch of red
> tape at work. What can I do to make integer-simple the default
> integer library for GHC? Need anything more than test suite and
> performance metrics? Any date planned for the 6.12.2 relea
Static linking to GMP on Windows is sending me towards a bunch of red
tape at work. What can I do to make integer-simple the default
integer library for GHC? Need anything more than test suite and
performance metrics? Any date planned for the 6.12.2 release?
Thanks,
Greg
25 matches
Mail list logo
