On Tue, 2008-03-11 at 16:25 -0700, Simon Marlow wrote:
> Duncan Coutts wrote:
> > from:
> > http://hackage.haskell.org/cgi-bin/hackage-scripts/package/mage-1.0
> >
> > perhapsPbecause it's a pointer import it gets treated differently?
>
> I just tried this and couldn't reproduce the problem.
>
Thanks Simon. That is the best answer I've received to this question in
many askings.
I will try to go the shared library route. A question about you last
comment: when you say link RTS and base, you mean extract the object
files and package in a single .a? Am I going to run into namespace
coll
Bruce, Joseph R (Joe) wrote:
When I run 'ghc -v ...', the linking is done via gcc->ld with a large
list of -u flags passed in. I'm hoping to find a way to link my object
files without those flags, but first I need to understand what they are
doing. Can someone explain it to me? Or point me to
John Meacham wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 02:47:37PM -0700, Simon Marlow wrote:
Yeah, I'd like -fvia-C to be headerless. We talked about it a while back
(on the haskell-prime list I think). The main issue is that GHC would have
to generate prototypes based on the FFI declaration, and since
Hi,
When I run 'ghc -v ...', the linking is done via gcc->ld with a large
list of -u flags passed in. I'm hoping to find a way to link my object
files without those flags, but first I need to understand what they are
doing. Can someone explain it to me? Or point me to documentation that
explain
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 02:47:37PM -0700, Simon Marlow wrote:
> Yeah, I'd like -fvia-C to be headerless. We talked about it a while back
> (on the haskell-prime list I think). The main issue is that GHC would have
> to generate prototypes based on the FFI declaration, and since it can't
> guar
Duncan Coutts wrote:
I was under the impression that with ghc, ffi import declarations like
this do not escape the module:
foreign import ccall unsafe "foo.h foo" foo :: IO ()
However it seems that this one does:
foreign import ccall unsafe "curses.h & stdscr" stdscrp :: Ptr WINDOWptr
from:
h
John Meacham wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 12:23:35AM +, Duncan Coutts wrote:
Which is really annoying :-) I'd like greater control over it, in
particular a way to limit headers to package scope so that dependent
code does not need the headers.
Ideally there would be no need for headers a
