Ian Lynagh wrote:
We are pleased to announce the first release candidate for GHC 6.10.2:
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/dist/6.10.2-rc1/
This includes two source bundles:
ghc-6.10.1.20090314-src.tar.bz2
ghc-6.10.1.20090314-src-extralibs.tar.bz2
Awesome!
This release candidate
Hello,
interesting but I'm not able to build this on SunOS 5.11/x86. The build
fails with:
(echo dist/build/cbits/PrelIOUtils.p_o dist/build/cbits/WCsubst.p_o
dist/build/cbits/Win32Utils.p_o dist/build/cbits/consUtils.p_o
dist/build/cbits/dirUtils.p_o dist/build/cbits/inputReady.p_o
Duncan Coutts wrote:
On Sat, 2009-03-14 at 23:43 -0700, Conal Elliott wrote:
The applicative-numbers package [1] provides an include file. With
ghci, the include file isn't being found, though with cabal+ghc it is
found.
My test source is just two lines:
{-# LANGUAGE CPP #-}
#include
Ian Lynagh wrote:
We are pleased to announce the first release candidate for GHC 6.10.2:
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/dist/6.10.2-rc1/
Under Solaris grep does not understand -q in configure:
checkMake380() {
if $1 --version 21 | head -1 | grep -q 'GNU Make 3\.80'
it fails with:
grep:
I have tested ghc-6.10.1.20090314 on Debian Linux, i386-unknown,
on
making from source by ghc-6.10.1, making itself from source, DoCon.
It looks all right.
-
Serge Mechveliani
mech...@botik.ru
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing
On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 12:13 +, Simon Marlow wrote:
This sounds like a chicken and egg problem. To know which package
include directories to use GHCi needs to know which packages your module
uses. However to work out which packages it needs it has to load the
module which means
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Duncan Coutts
duncan.cou...@worc.ox.ac.ukwrote:
On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 12:13 +, Simon Marlow wrote:
This sounds like a chicken and egg problem. To know which package
include directories to use GHCi needs to know which packages your
module
uses.
On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 16:04 -0700, Conal Elliott wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Duncan Coutts
duncan.cou...@worc.ox.ac.uk wrote:
On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 12:13 +, Simon Marlow wrote:
Perhaps I'm missing something, but if applicative-numbers is
an exposed
