I've found a bug in the scheduler:
When a main thread finishes (e.g. returning from a ffi callback), the
GC might be run before it is removed from the main_threads list. If a
major collection happens, the thread will be garbage collected and the
GC barfs when it updates the pointers in the
What is the approved way of generating and installing docs?
I tried (from source)
./configure ...
make all
make install
make html
make dvi
make ps
make install-docs
The latter command fails with (as usual with a bit of German :-)
---
==fptools== make install-docs -wr;
in
What is the approved way of generating and installing docs?
I tried (from source)
./configure ...
make all
make install
make html
make dvi
make ps
make install-docs
The latter command fails with (as usual with a bit of German :-)
Do you have Haddock installed? Did the configure
| The report says The expression F {}, where F is a data constructor,
is
| legal whether or not F was declared with record syntax, provided F has
no
| strict fields: it denotes F _|_1 ... _|_n where n is the arity of F.
|
| It unclear to me why there needs to be this provision for records with
What is the approved way of generating and installing docs?
I tried (from source)
./configure ...
make all
make install
make html
make dvi
make ps
make install-docs
The latter command fails with (as usual with a bit of German :-)
Do you have Haddock installed? Did the
BTW, why did you separate Haddock from GHC? I love these vicious
circles: to build GHC with docs you need Haddock, to build Haddock
you need GHC ...
You can either use an installed Haddock, or use Haddock from the same
tree (./configure --enable-src-tree-haddock).
It's not really a cyclic
I've found a bug in the scheduler:
When a main thread finishes (e.g. returning from a ffi callback), the
GC might be run before it is removed from the main_threads list. If a
major collection happens, the thread will be garbage
collected and the
GC barfs when it updates the pointers
| The report says The expression F {}, where F is a data constructor,
is
| legal whether or not F was declared with record syntax, provided F has
no
| strict fields: it denotes F _|_1 ... _|_n where n is the arity of F.
|
| It unclear to me why there needs to be this provision for records with
On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 12:34:53PM +0100, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
I spoke too soon. Consider
data F = F Int !Int
data S = S { x::Int, y::!Int }
According to the words above
F {} is illegal
but what about this one?
S {}
I think the sentence in question (end of 3.15.2)
| I think the sentence in question (end of 3.15.2) is just a
clarification;
| the preceding 4 rules are sufficient and clear: F{}, S{} and S{x=3}
are
| all illegal because they omit a value for a strict field. That is,
it's
| correct, though not strictly necessary, nor does it cover all the
Blargh. Excellent point. I had totally forgotten that. I withdraw all
suggested changes except a cross-ref to the section you mention. Sigh.
My brain is getting soft.
Actually the rules referenced appear immediately above, so no reference is
necessary.
My original message was not
On http://www.haskell.org/ghc/
the link to the Users' Guide is missing.
Cheers Christian
GHC Features
This is a summary of GHC's main features. They are all described in more
detail in the Users' Guide.
The requested URL
/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/book-users-guide.html was not found
*Foo it
ghc-5.04.1: panic! (the `impossible' happened, GHC version 5.04.1):
rdrNameModule it
Fixed, thanks.
Simon
___
Glasgow-haskell-bugs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-bugs
13 matches
Mail list logo