swest3:
> >You're paying the price of being an early adopter :-). If any of the ghc
> >developers had an AMD64, there'd probably be a registered build by now.
> >
> Well... these guys aren't very devoted now are they? Why can't they just
> steal one like me? :)
If someone steals one for me, I'll
duncan.coutts:
> On Wed, 2004-06-02 at 15:45, scott west wrote:
> > I'd settle for unregisterised... it seems every time I run through the
> > whole port process I see to do some new wrong thing each time, hehe. I'm
> > really just in search of a working ghc implementation for my amd64,
> > regi
swest3:
>
> >The amd64 port isn't really there yet. It works unregisterised, but the
> >registerised support need some more work (as you discovered). You also
> >need a non-broken version of gcc (3.3.3 or 3.4.0).
> >
> >
> I'd settle for unregisterised... it seems every time I run through the
newtype Y e = Y { unY :: (e (Y e)) }
deriving(Data,Typeable,Show,Read,Eq)
gives
E.hs:64:
Can't make a derived instance of `Typeable (Y e)'
(`Y' is parameterised over arguments of kind other than `*')
When deriving instances for type `Y'
Is there any way around this limitati
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 06:19:00PM +0100, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-06-02 at 17:44, David Brown wrote:
> > Any estimates on the difficulty of changing Linker.c to be able to use
> > standard dynamic link calls (dlopen, ...) rather than having to be
> > customized for every target platform
I too would be happy with an unregistered build.
I've tried off and on to port ghc to my linux distro (uses static
linking against uClibc, glibc isn't present at all). Every time I go
through the process, I get stuck at the point where I seem to have a
working unregistered build. I can't quite fin
On Wed, 2004-06-02 at 17:44, David Brown wrote:
> Any estimates on the difficulty of changing Linker.c to be able to use
> standard dynamic link calls (dlopen, ...) rather than having to be
> customized for every target platform.
I asked Simon M about this recently:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[E
Any estimates on the difficulty of changing Linker.c to be able to use
standard dynamic link calls (dlopen, ...) rather than having to be
customized for every target platform.
I'm considering making this work on powerpc-linux, but I'm thinking it
might be a more useful task to make the linker more
You're paying the price of being an early adopter :-). If any of the ghc
developers had an AMD64, there'd probably be a registered build by now.
Well... these guys aren't very devoted now are they? Why can't they just
steal one like me? :)
And my one ray of hope is that there is a build for O
On Wed, 2004-06-02 at 16:14, scott west wrote:
> >If you're after performance (rather than simply working), you'll need to
> >wait for a registered build, or if you've got the assembler hacking
> >skills you can help out.
> >
> I'm afraid of the few skills I have (walking, breathing, eating, etc),
If you're after performance (rather than simply working), you'll need to
wait for a registered build, or if you've got the assembler hacking
skills you can help out.
I'm afraid of the few skills I have (walking, breathing, eating, etc),
working in assembler isn't one of them! And if I lower my
Hello,
scott west wrote:
> Does anyone have any
> unregistered amd64 builds that they've cooked up?
And please put it on a ftp server somewhere if you have a working build for
Linux/amd64.
Gabriel.
--
Gabriel Ebner - reverse "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
==> Please don't CC me! I'm reading the
On Wed, 2004-06-02 at 15:45, scott west wrote:
> I'd settle for unregisterised... it seems every time I run through the
> whole port process I see to do some new wrong thing each time, hehe. I'm
> really just in search of a working ghc implementation for my amd64,
> registered or not (the main d
The amd64 port isn't really there yet. It works unregisterised, but the
registerised support need some more work (as you discovered). You also
need a non-broken version of gcc (3.3.3 or 3.4.0).
I'd settle for unregisterised... it seems every time I run through the
whole port process I see to
On 01 June 2004 18:00, John Meacham wrote:
> server side includes are no longer being processed on the ghc web
> server making the web page sort of not usable. perhaps someone
> changed the .htaccess or apache config?
Well spotted. Now fixed, thanks.
> also, I no longer seem to have access to
Title: Message
The last couple of
days, http://cvs.haskell.org has been
barely functional for me (pardon the pun). Does anybody know what's
up?
Dean
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/
16 matches
Mail list logo
