With the helpful pointers from ezyang on IRC, I pushed this a bit forward.
I converted most of the patches into more reasonable commits including short
descriptions and created a git branch for it. See
https://github.com/ghc/ghc/compare/ghc-7.10.1-release...elieux:msys2-pkgbuild.
As mentioned
Hi Yitzchak,
On 2015-05-21 at 11:25:46 +0200, Yitzchak Gale wrote:
[...]
Bardur Arantsson wrote:
I don't see any need for an option. Just bundle cpphs together with GHC
and build/use it as an external program. AFAICT this has absolutely no
licensing implications for GHC, derived from GHC or
Interesting. I'm not completely clear, when you say that your company
distributes binaries to third-parties: do you distribute ghc itself? Or just
the product that has been built by ghc?
Regards,
Malcolm
On 21 May 2015, at 10:16, Yitzchak Gale wrote:
LGPL is well-known and
On 05/21/2015 12:31 PM, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
Hi Yitzchak,
On 2015-05-21 at 11:25:46 +0200, Yitzchak Gale wrote:
[...]
Bardur Arantsson wrote:
I don't see any need for an option. Just bundle cpphs together with GHC
and build/use it as an external program. AFAICT this has
On 21 May 2015, at 15:54, Bardur Arantsson wrote:
fork/exec is almost certainly going to be negligable compared to the
overall compile time anyway. It's not like GHC is fast enough for it to
matter.
Don't count on it. On our Windows desktop machines, fork/exec costs
approximately one third
On 05/21/2015 05:36 PM, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
On 21 May 2015, at 15:54, Bardur Arantsson wrote:
fork/exec is almost certainly going to be negligable compared to the
overall compile time anyway. It's not like GHC is fast enough for it to
matter.
Don't count on it. On our Windows
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Herbert Valerio Riedel hvrie...@gmail.com
wrote:
Performance isn't (my) motivation for avoiding fork/exec (and the
equivalent on Win32) but rather avoiding the added complexity of
marshalling/IPC with fork/exec, as opposed to simply calling into a
native
On 2015-05-21 at 18:02:57 +0200, Brandon Allbery wrote:
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Herbert Valerio Riedel hvrie...@gmail.com
wrote:
Performance isn't (my) motivation for avoiding fork/exec (and the
equivalent on Win32) but rather avoiding the added complexity of
marshalling/IPC with
On 2015-05-21 at 16:54:11 +0200, Bardur Arantsson wrote:
[...]
That would be the preferred way from a technical standpoint, as it would
avoid fork/exec and make it easier to integrate the CPP-phase tighter
into the lexer/parser.
fork/exec is almost certainly going to be negligable compared
