.
Simon
| -Original Message-
| From: Conal Elliott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
| Sent: 22 April 2002 22:47
| To: Ghc-Bugs
| Subject: More pointer-equality weirdness
|
|
| I'm getting some _really_ weird results under ghci from the
| unsafePtrEq I'm using (thanks to Sigbjorn). It works fine
Simon:
So pointer equality may change over time.
That's what you get for pointer-equality.
I think the point of Conal's mail was that ghci prints just one answer
then halts (crashes?) whereas ghc prints two.
--
Alastair
___
Glasgow-haskell-bugs
-
From: Alastair Reid [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 4:55 AM
To: Simon Peyton-Jones
Cc: Conal Elliott; Ghc-Bugs
Subject: Re: More pointer-equality weirdness
Simon:
So pointer equality may change over time.
That's what you get for pointer-equality.
I think the point
-Jones
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 3:15 AM
To: Conal Elliott; Ghc-Bugs
Subject: RE: More pointer-equality weirdness
Well, it says it's unsafe!
The point is that
(1::Int) `unsafePtrEq` (1::Int)
is not necessarily True. The 1 is boxed, and the interpreter
chooses to allocate two boxes
I'm getting some _really_ weird results under ghci from the unsafePtrEq
I'm using (thanks to Sigbjorn). It works fine under ghc. I'm running
5.03.20020208 under Windows XP. Is there a work-around, perhaps via a
different implementation of unsafePtrEq? - Conal
module Main where
import
