skaller wrote:
On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 12:23 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello glasgow-haskell-users,
are you plan to implement 64-bit windows GHC version?
The main thing standing in the way of this is the lack of a 64-bit port of
mingw.
Why do you need mingw? What's
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello skaller,
Tuesday, June 19, 2007, 8:15:19 PM, you wrote:
are you plan to implement 64-bit windows GHC version?
Why do you need mingw? What's wrong with MSVC++?
really! Simon, how about unregisterised build?
Unregisterised would still need a C compiler capable
Marc Weber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
print $ M.(.!.) [1,2] 1 -- (2)
The parens must enclose the whole varop:
print $ (M..!.) [1,2] 1 -- (2)
Regards,
Malcolm
___
Glasgow-haskell-users
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 08:49 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
I don't think we'll be able to drop the mingw route either, mainly because
while
the MS tools are free to download, they're not properly free, and we want
to
retain the ability to have a completely free distribution with no
skaller wrote:
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 08:49 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
I don't think we'll be able to drop the mingw route either, mainly because while
the MS tools are free to download, they're not properly free, and we want to
retain the ability to have a completely free distribution with no
Hi
I'm not sure I understand this. MS tools are free to download
by anyone, but not redistributable. The binaries needed by
programs *built* by those tools are not only free to download,
they're free to redistribute, and they're less encumbered than
almost all so-called 'free software'
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 14:42 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
The binaries needed by programs built by these tools..., you're referring
to
the C runtime DLLs? Why does that matter?
Note I said with no dependencies above. A Windows native port of GHC would
require you to go to MS and download
Neil Mitchell wrote:
Hi
I'm not sure I understand this. MS tools are free to download
by anyone, but not redistributable. The binaries needed by
programs *built* by those tools are not only free to download,
they're free to redistribute, and they're less encumbered than
almost all
skaller wrote:
GHC needs to target *professional windows programmers*.
They're going to have VS installed already. Haskell is far
too important a language (IMHO) not to have an entry in
the commercial programming arena.
Commercial programming is in a bad way! It NEEDS stuff like
Haskell
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Neil Mitchell wrote:
Typically MS tools are
well packaged and even if there is a click through license, it usually
involves checking a box and clicking next. I can't believe that anyone
is going to have any difficulty installing Visual Studio
I would be more than happy to help. Maybe we need to get a sub-team
together and start plowing through this mine-field?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Simon
Marlow
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 10:29 AM
To: skaller
Cc:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
skaller wrote:
(MS and gcc C++ are incompatible).
is this still true? GCC has been standardizing its C++ ABI for a while,
and I think there actually weren't any ABI changes noted between 4.1 and
4.2 for most platforms (I don't know if MS C++ is
skaller wrote:
On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 12:23 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello glasgow-haskell-users,
are you plan to implement 64-bit windows GHC version?
The main thing standing in the way of this is the lack of a 64-
bit port of
mingw.
Why do you need mingw?
| BTW: I don't really like Windows .. but I want to see Haskell
| succeed. Trying to do Haskell on Windows without MSVC++ toolchain
| is like trying to work on Linux without binutils... :)
|
| This is a fine point, and probably the biggest reason for doing a
| Windows native
| port. I'd like
Simon Marlow wrote:
GHC *developers* wouldn't be any better off either. You'd still
need either
Cygwin or MSYS for the build environment. There's no way I'm using
MS build
tools, ugh.
The way I have it set up (so far) is as simple as running configure
and make--all from the command
Hello Simon,
Wednesday, June 20, 2007, 11:51:34 AM, you wrote:
really! Simon, how about unregisterised build?
Unregisterised would still need a C compiler capable of generating 64-bit
code.
Are you talking about using the MS compiler for that? Certainly possible,
but
I'm not sure why
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 11:39 -0400, Peter Tanski wrote:
The largest problem is the build system: GHC uses autoconf with
custom makefiles.
Well, that needs to be fixed. Autoconf and make are rubbish.
I have looked into porting the whole thing to a
Visual Studio project, using SCons
Hello skaller,
Thursday, June 21, 2007, 7:06:09 AM, you wrote:
generally speaking, people want to use 64-bit code in order to work
with much larger data space, overall speed may be better than using
32-bit version with 2gb limit
With x86_64, 64 bit programs are usually faster than 32 bit
18 matches
Mail list logo
