Conal,
Could you remind us what you're using unsafePtrEq for? Perhaps there's
another way to do what you want, or we could maybe reinstate
unsafePtrEq.
Cheers,
Simon
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sigbjorn Finne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 17 April 2002 04:09
> To: Conal Elliott
> Cc: Ghc-Bugs
> Subject: Re: unsafePtrEq in 5.03?
>
>
> A spot of CVS archeology revealed that it was removed as
> a primop as part of a NCG overhaul couple of months ago.
> Don't know if leaving it out was simply an omission or
> if there's something deeper going on.
>
> Anyway, you can approximate the old defn with the following:
>
> module PtrEq where
>
> import GHC.Base
> unsafePtrEq :: a -> a -> Bool
> unsafePtrEq a b = (unsafeCoerce# a) `eqAddr#` (unsafeCoerce# b)
>
> Clearly, it doesn't chase indirections.
>
> hth
> --sigbjorn
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Conal Elliott
> To: Ghc-Bugs
> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 18:43
> Subject: unsafePtrEq in 5.03?
>
>
> Did unsafePtrEq disappear between 5.02 and 5.03? - Conal
>
> _______________________________________________
> Glasgow-haskell-bugs mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-bugs
>
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-bugs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-bugs
