At Wed, 6 Dec 2006 09:40:47 +0200,
wld [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ghc-6.7: /home/wld/test/fptools/libraries/unix/HSunix.o: unknown symbol
`lstat'
For a quick fix add -fvia-c to
GhcLibHcOpts = -O -fvia-c
in mk/build.mk, run make clean; make in libraries/unix.
After a quick glance, I can't see
#1066: MacOSX powerpc gcc 3.3/4.0 and unknown symbol `_printf$LDBLStub'
---+
Reporter: gracjan-agh.edu.pl | Owner:
Type: bug | Status: new
Priority: normal
#1066: MacOSX powerpc gcc 3.3/4.0 and unknown symbol `_printf$LDBLStub'
+---
Reporter: gracjan-agh.edu.pl | Owner:
Type: bug | Status: new
Priority: normal
#455: mkProtoBCO: stack use won't fit in 16 bits 79141
--+-
Reporter: simonmar | Owner: igloo
Type: bug | Status: closed
Priority: normal| Milestone: 6.6.1
Component: GHCi
#953: panic in ghci for lseek ffi import statement
--+-
Reporter: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Owner: igloo
Type: bug | Status: new
Priority: normal| Milestone: 6.6.1
#1066: MacOSX powerpc gcc 3.3/4.0 and unknown symbol `_printf$LDBLStub'
+---
Reporter: gracjan-agh.edu.pl | Owner: thorkilnaur
Type: bug | Status: new
Priority: normal
#1067: assertion failure in Schedule.c
---+
Reporter: ms43| Owner:
Type: bug | Status: new
Priority: normal | Milestone:
Component: Runtime
How about
* concurrency (the ability to have zillions of little stacks,
with stack overflow checks and growing the stck on overflow)?
* exception handling (the ability to crawl over the stack
looking for exception catch frames)?
* garbage collection (the ability to find pointers in
Simon Wolfgang:
OK, let me address these as far as I know them from my miniscule
research so far:
Global Register Variables -- I'm not sure I understand the point here.
LLVM is a... well, a virtual machine. It's not a real target. The LLVM
code is then either simulated in a VM (as per, say,
On 21-Dec-06, at 1:26 PM, Michael T. Richter wrote:
Global Register Variables -- I'm not sure I understand the point
here. LLVM is a... well, a virtual machine. It's not a real
target. The LLVM code is then either simulated in a VM (as per,
say, Java) or it is further compiled to a
In general, GHC (like every other compiler that does strictness analysis)
feels free to change non-termination into a call to 'error' and vice versa.
Under what circumstances does the (error - non-termination)
transformation happen? I'd be unhappy if (head ) put me into an
infinite loop
| Do you mean if I have both an infinite loop and an error call, then I
| might get only the loop?
Absolutely.
f x = error urk
loop n = loop (n+1)
main = print (f (loop 0))
The compiler figures out that f is strict, and uses call by value. Result is a
loop.
Simon
| Do you mean if I have both an infinite loop and an error call, then I
| might get only the loop?
Absolutely.
That's fine and what I expected.
I take it, then, that the answer to the question of under what
circumstances does the (error - non-termination) transformation
happen? is that GHC
I've just discovered the {-# INLINE #-} pragma, but it's not
doing as much for me as I had hoped.
My example is complicated, so let me present a simpler analogy.
Suppose I defined
compose :: (b - c) - (a - b) - (a - c)
compose f g = \x - f (g x)
I can easily persuade GHC to inline 'compose'.
Hello,
I have a function with type
f :: Int - Int - Int - Int - Int - NRup - NRdown
and I want to make sure it is evaluated only once for the same set of
arguments but I observe that it is always evaluated several times.
f is implemented in C and called via the FFI. The C function may or may
On 12/21/06, Axel Jantsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I have a function with type
f :: Int - Int - Int - Int - Int - NRup - NRdown
and I want to make sure it is evaluated only once for the same set of
arguments but I observe that it is always evaluated several times.
f is implemented in
hscolour-1.6
HsColour is a syntax-highlighter for Haskell code. It can generate ANSI
terminal colour codes, HTML, and CSS, and can insert hyperlink anchors
for function definitions (useful in conjunction with Haddock).
HsColour-1.6 is
On 12/21/06, Axel Jantsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a function with type
f :: Int - Int - Int - Int - Int - NRup - NRdown
and I want to make sure it is evaluated only once for the same set of
arguments but I observe that it is always evaluated several times.
Maybe you want to memoize
Hi Joachim,
All those libraries really force the data because they all are written
in Haskell. If you want to serialize thunks then you will need some
support from RTS. This is something that is implemented in Clean but
this just uncovers a lot of other problems:
The serialization of thunk
| One thing that might become a problem is that the Scrap your
| boilerplate approach seems to work only in GHC.
I don't think so. Other compilers might not support deriving Data, but you
can always write the instance by hand.
Simon
___
Haskell-Cafe
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 15:24:54 -0800, Ashley Yakeley
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since learning Haskell, I can now count in Spanish! See:
one in Spanish,
two in Spanish,
three in Spanish,
four in Spanish..
The side effect is:
a - Being able to write in Spanish?
b- Being nuts?
Saludos
Hello Joachim,
Wednesday, December 20, 2006, 11:22:24 AM, you wrote:
The update code would now have to unmarshall a blob of game data,
traverse it to find all instances of SomeData, wrap them in a
one-element list to turn them into SomeData1s, reconstruct the blob of
game data with the
On 12/20/06, Bulat Ziganshin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Joachim,
Wednesday, December 20, 2006, 11:22:24 AM, you wrote:
The update code would now have to unmarshall a blob of game data,
traverse it to find all instances of SomeData, wrap them in a
one-element list to turn them into
Hi all,
I'm still trying to figure out why, in the Graphics.HGL library, is the
timer not treated as the other events (mouse clics, key pressing... ?
For instance see :
http://haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/libraries/HGL/Graphics-HGL-Window.html
As I understand, the timer in a HGL GUI
Krasimir Angelov schrieb:
All those libraries really force the data because they all are written
in Haskell. If you want to serialize thunks then you will need some
support from RTS.
Good to hear that my conjectures aren't too far from reality.
Does any Haskell implementation have that kind
On 12/21/06, Joachim Durchholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Krasimir Angelov schrieb:
All those libraries really force the data because they all are written
in Haskell. If you want to serialize thunks then you will need some
support from RTS.
Good to hear that my conjectures aren't too far from
Simon Peyton-Jones schrieb:
| One thing that might become a problem is that the Scrap your
| boilerplate approach seems to work only in GHC.
I don't think so. Other compilers might not support deriving Data,
but you can always write the instance by hand.
How much boilerplate would be needed
Hi
All those libraries really force the data because they all are written
in Haskell. If you want to serialize thunks then you will need some
support from RTS.
Good to hear that my conjectures aren't too far from reality.
Does any Haskell implementation have that kind of RTS support?
Hello Simon,
Thursday, December 21, 2006, 12:02:22 PM, you wrote:
| One thing that might become a problem is that the Scrap your
| boilerplate approach seems to work only in GHC.
I don't think so. Other compilers might not support deriving Data, but
you can always write the instance by
Hello Joachim,
Wednesday, December 20, 2006, 9:30:02 PM, you wrote:
One thing that might become a problem is that the Scrap your
boilerplate approach seems to work only in GHC.
There's nothing wrong with GHC, but it sounds like I'm committing to a
specific compiler right from the start. I'd
Hi
there are really no choices for real development. many libraries, language
extensions and techniques are for ghc only
I develop everything in Hugs, including the Yhc compiler itself. Hugs
is great. There are lots of extensions in GHC, but Haskell 98 is a
perfectly useable language!
So
On Dec 21, 2006, at 15:53 , Neil Mitchell wrote:
Hi
there are really no choices for real development. many libraries,
language
extensions and techniques are for ghc only
I develop everything in Hugs, including the Yhc compiler itself. Hugs
is great. There are lots of extensions in GHC,
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 11:03:42PM +0100, Joachim Durchholz wrote:
If yes: are there workarounds? I'd really like to be able to use
infinite data structures in the data that I serialize.
There is an interesting technique thay allows you to serialize infinite,
lazy or functional values: don't
Lennart Augustsson wrote:
I must second this opinion. There's this (false) perception that you
need all
kinds of extensions to make Haskell usable. It's simply not true.
Certain
extensions can make your life easier, but that's it.
To write code in Haskell, this is true.
However, one of
Hi
In other words, you can program in Haskell just fine without
extensions. But if you want that next level in type safety,
extensions is where it's at, at least for the kind of code I write.
What level of safety do these type extensions give you? The biggest
runtime crasher is probably
Lennart Augustsson wrote:
On Dec 21, 2006, at 15:53 , Neil Mitchell wrote:
Hi
there are really no choices for real development. many libraries,
language
extensions and techniques are for ghc only
I develop everything in Hugs, including the Yhc compiler itself. Hugs
is great. There are lots
Am I right that the way to do this now is create your own preprocessor
run on files havirg your extionsion?
What about naming the source files eg Module.hs.cpp.di.gc.chs ?
This would mean first run c2hs, then greencard thin DrIft then cpp and
put the results in
Module.hs.cpp.di.gc.chs 1)
Hi
In other words, what on earth is good about gluing oneself to Haskell98?
Life's moved on...
If you stick to Haskell 98 you can:
* Convert your code to Clean (Hacle)
* Debug it (Hat)
* Run it in your browser (ycr2js)
* Document it (Haddock)
* Make a cross platform binary (yhc)
* Get
Neil Mitchell wrote:
In other words, you can program in Haskell just fine without
extensions. But if you want that next level in type safety,
extensions is where it's at, at least for the kind of code I write.
What level of safety do these type extensions give you?
Check out many, many, many
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006, Imam Tashdid ul Alam wrote:
Bulat Ziganshin raised: Num is intrinsically bound to
the compiler. sad. so let's leave Num out. this
basically means we will avoid abstract algebra in
general. that is, forget groups, rings, for now,
See
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...werbeH neve dna
a
n
d
C
h
i
n
e
s
e
You read too much spam. :-)
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
Neil Mitchell wrote:
Hi
In other words, what on earth is good about gluing oneself to
Haskell98? Life's moved on...
If you stick to Haskell 98 you can:
* Convert your code to Clean (Hacle)
* Debug it (Hat)
* Run it in your browser (ycr2js)
* Document it (Haddock)
* Make a cross platform
Hi
True, though it would be even better if the usual extensions were more
widely supported, though I suppose identifying what's useful and therefore
worth supporting is the point of the Haskell Prime process.
Exactly the reason for Haskell Prime.
As an aside I've often thought it would be
Jacques Carette wrote:
Neil Mitchell wrote:
The biggest
runtime crasher is probably pattern match failings, something that
most of these type extensions don't catch at all!
Array out-of-bounds, fromJust, head on an empty list, and
pattern-match failures are in my list of things I wish the
Jacques Carette wrote:
Lennart Augustsson wrote:
I must second this opinion. There's this (false) perception that you
need all
kinds of extensions to make Haskell usable. It's simply not true.
Certain
extensions can make your life easier, but that's it.
To write code in Haskell, this
Hi Andy,
On Dec 20, 2006, at 9:15, Andy Georges wrote:
Well, AFAIK, PAPI abstracts away the platform dependencies quite
well, so I guess your code can be run straightforward on all IA-32
platforms (depending on the events you wish to measure, which may
or may not be present on all
Hi --
I'm still learning to use ghc effectively, and I'm trying to use it
for more-or-less mundane programming tasks, hopefully in a way which
is a lot more elegant than I'd do in Java or Perl.
I've got a big [around a gigabyte] binary file, filled with identical
binary structures
Alexey,
Well, AFAIK, PAPI abstracts away the platform dependencies quite
well, so I guess your code can be run straightforward on all IA-32
platforms (depending on the events you wish to measure, which may
or may not be present on all platforms). PowerPC, Itanium, Mips,
Alpha should work
Yes, dependent types have a lot to do with all this. And I am an eager
lurker of all this Epigram.
Scott Brickner wrote:
Jacques Carette wrote:
Array out-of-bounds, fromJust, head on an empty list, and
pattern-match failures are in my list of things I wish the type
system could help me
Jacques Carette wrote:
Yes, dependent types have a lot to do with all this. And I am an
eager lurker of all this Epigram.
Would it be possible to augment Haskell's type system so that it was the
same as that used in Epigram?
Epigram itself uses a novel 2d layout and a novel way of writing
It's possible to augment Haskell type system to be the one in
Epigram. But it would no longer be Haskell. :) And to meet the
goals of Epigram you'd also have to remove (unrestricted) recursion
from Haskell.
-- Lennart
On Dec 21, 2006, at 23:46 , Brian Hulley wrote:
Jacques
Tomasz Zielonka schrieb:
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 11:03:42PM +0100, Joachim Durchholz wrote:
If yes: are there workarounds? I'd really like to be able to use
infinite data structures in the data that I serialize.
There is an interesting technique thay allows you to serialize infinite,
lazy or
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 07:16:16PM +0100, Henning Thielemann wrote:
About the question, whether functions should be provided in the most
general context, I refer to
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Slim_instance_declaration
Certainly we all agree that a module that defines instances
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 01:47:48PM -0800, Ranjan Bagchi wrote:
Is there a fast way to do this using ghc? I can extract fields by
using a ByteString, but I may not be using it fast enough: I've had
to write my own routines to extract ints, longs and doubles.
The other option is to write
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 01:47:48PM -0800, Ranjan Bagchi wrote:
I've got a big [around a gigabyte] binary file, filled with identical
binary structures (imagine a C process writing structs). I'd like to
process/analyze them efficiently. In C or even Java, i'd memory map
the file and
hi guys,
there's a page on the haskellwiki (called The Other Prelude) now which has
a discussion page as well (like all wiki pages!). so let's do it.
on topic:
this is why I think renaming is quite unnecessary. The Other Prelude should
be very concise, both conceptually and in size. IMHO this
I'm looking for a pattern to use for state separation in my
application.
I need to write two stateful libraries. One is a partitioned in-
memory store, the other a disk based store with an in-memory cache
fronting it. Both store modules need the IO and State monad.
My aim is to write the
57 matches
Mail list logo
