listener:
> On Friday 18 June 2004 15:39, Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
> > bet:
> > > Which brings us around to the question that opened this thread, is
> > > there any way to install the unregistered build?
> >
> > Yes. Download and build the src, and 'make install' :-)
> >
> > For some platforms u
On Friday 18 June 2004 15:39, Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
> bet:
> > Which brings us around to the question that opened this thread, is
> > there any way to install the unregistered build?
>
> Yes. Download and build the src, and 'make install' :-)
>
> For some platforms unregistered builds are eve
2004-06-18T13:39:38 Donald Bruce Stewart:
> Yes. Download and build the src, and 'make install' :-)
Thanks --- turns out my problem was that something in my env breaks
the makefile, Simon gave me what I hope is the voodoo to get it to
work.
-Bennett
pgpNBMx3rmHsm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
bet:
> 2004-06-18T01:57:14 Donald Bruce Stewart:
> > That's interesting. GHC unregisterised on amd64/openbsd *does* pass all
> > the testsuite tests.
>
> Which brings us around to the question that opened this thread, is
> there any way to install the unregistered build?
Yes. Download and build t
2004-06-18T08:57:27 Simon Marlow:
> Ok, $(ProjectsThatExist) is supposed to be set to all the projects in
> your source tree that can be built, which on a normal GHC build should
> be something like this:
>
> ProjectsThatExist="glafp-utils ghc libraries hslibs"
>
> This value is set right near th
2004-06-18T01:57:14 Donald Bruce Stewart:
> That's interesting. GHC unregisterised on amd64/openbsd *does* pass all
> the testsuite tests.
Which brings us around to the question that opened this thread, is
there any way to install the unregistered build?
Thanks,
-Bennett
pgpxPpD8HzWZd.pgp
Desc
On 17 June 2004 17:30, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Thursday 17 June 2004 17:38, Simon Marlow wrote:
>> It looks like registerised compilation on x86_64 isn't quite working
>> yet, then. If you're up to debugging this, then I suggest you start
>> from a simpler program - try hello world registerise
On 17 June 2004 13:09, Bennett Todd wrote:
> 2004-06-17T09:04:40 Simon Marlow:
>> Hmmm. Try these please:
>>
>> make show VALUE=ProjectsToBuild
>> make show VALUE=ProjectsThatExist
>> make show VALUE=SUBDIRS
>
> bash-2.05b$ make show VALUE=ProjectsToBuild
> ProjectsToBuild=""
> bash-2.0
listener:
> On Thursday 17 June 2004 17:38, Simon Marlow wrote:
> > It looks like registerised compilation on x86_64 isn't quite working
> > yet, then. If you're up to debugging this, then I suggest you start
> > from a simpler program - try hello world registerised, and then slightly
> > larger p
On Thursday 17 June 2004 17:38, Simon Marlow wrote:
> It looks like registerised compilation on x86_64 isn't quite working
> yet, then. If you're up to debugging this, then I suggest you start
> from a simpler program - try hello world registerised, and then slightly
> larger programs if that work
On 17 June 2004 16:29, Peter Robinson wrote:
> Well the build finally succeeded but unfortunately I immediately get a
> segfault when running ghc/ghci.
> I've attached the output of
> # strace -o log ./ghc
It looks like registerised compilation on x86_64 isn't quite working
yet, then. If you're
Well the build finally succeeded but unfortunately I immediately get a
segfault when running ghc/ghci.
I've attached the output of
# strace -o log ./ghc
Cheers
Peter
On Thursday 17 June 2004 15:25, Simon Marlow wrote:
> On 17 June 2004 14:08, Peter Robinson wrote:
>
>
>
On 17 June 2004 14:08, Peter Robinson wrote:
>
> ==fptools== make all -wr;
> in /home/thaldyron/var/ghcbuild/ghc-6.2.20040613/libraries/base
>
> rm -f
On Thursday 17 June 2004 15:01, Gerd M wrote:
> Unfortunately I've only got one gcc version installed at the moment and I'm
> not sure if installing another version won't break something... Maybe I
> will give it another try later this week, thanks for your help so far!
> Regards
> Gerd
Since I'm
Simon Marlow wrote:
This one looks like a failure from GCC, not GHC. If possible, you
should send a bug report to the GCC folks or Gentoo as requested.
You could try using a different version of GCC to work around the
problem.
Unfortunately I've only got one gcc version installed at the moment and
2004-06-17T09:04:40 Simon Marlow:
> Hmmm. Try these please:
>
> make show VALUE=ProjectsToBuild
> make show VALUE=ProjectsThatExist
> make show VALUE=SUBDIRS
bash-2.05b$ make show VALUE=ProjectsToBuild
ProjectsToBuild=""
bash-2.05b$ make show VALUE=ProjectsThatExist
ProjectsThatExist="
On 17 June 2004 10:59, Gerd M wrote:
> I managed to create an unregistered build that compiles the hello
> world example.
> # file hello
> hello: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, AMD x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), for
> GNU/Linux 2.6.0, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), not stripped
Great!
> /tmp/ghc7
I managed to create an unregistered build that compiles the hello world
example.
# file hello
hello: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, AMD x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), for
GNU/Linux 2.6.0, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), not stripped
But when I tried to build a registered compiler with it (by using
On 16 June 2004 13:50, Bennett Todd wrote:
> 2004-06-16T10:33:49 Simon Marlow:
>> On 15 June 2004 16:24, Bennett Todd wrote:
>>> 2004-06-15T14:52:53 Simon Marlow:
After hc-build, you should unpack a completely fresh GHC source
tree, somewhere else. Then 'cd' into this tree, and issue th
2004-06-16T13:26:45 Simon Marlow:
> Bennett, who said he had a working unregisterised build.
I'm by no means a Haskell expert, or even a Haskell programmer; but
my unregistered build does do hello.hs successfully.
-Bennett
pgp9V3uOTefQY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
On 16 June 2004 13:19, Gerd M wrote:
> Simon Marlow wrote:
>> It looks like HC bootstrapping is enabled in this tree; it shouldn't
>> be. Just use a completely fresh source tree, don't configure with
>> --enable-hc-boot, and don't unpack any HC files into it.
>>
> If I use a fresh source tree wit
2004-06-16T10:33:49 Simon Marlow:
> On 15 June 2004 16:24, Bennett Todd wrote:
> > 2004-06-15T14:52:53 Simon Marlow:
> >> After hc-build, you should unpack a completely fresh GHC source tree,
> >> somewhere else. Then 'cd' into this tree, and issue the
> >> configure/make commands.
> >
> > Alas,
Simon Marlow wrote:
It looks like HC bootstrapping is enabled in this tree; it shouldn't be.
Just use a completely fresh source tree, don't configure with
--enable-hc-boot, and don't unpack any HC files into it.
If I use a fresh source tree without HCs then I need the unregistered build
to compile
On 15 June 2004 16:24, Bennett Todd wrote:
> 2004-06-15T14:52:53 Simon Marlow:
>> After hc-build, you should unpack a completely fresh GHC source tree,
>> somewhere else. Then 'cd' into this tree, and issue the
>> configure/make commands.
>
> Alas, no joy; again, "make" does nothing.
>
> These
On 16 June 2004 11:00, Gerd M wrote:
> Simon Marlow wrote:
>> After hc-build, you should unpack a completely fresh GHC source tree,
>> somewhere else. Then 'cd' into this tree, and issue the
>> configure/make commands.
>
> I tried this and got as far as:
>
---
Simon Marlow wrote:
After hc-build, you should unpack a completely fresh GHC source tree,
somewhere else. Then 'cd' into this tree, and issue the configure/make
commands.
I tried this and got as far as:
==fptools== make all -
2004-06-15T14:52:53 Simon Marlow:
> After hc-build, you should unpack a completely fresh GHC source tree,
> somewhere else. Then 'cd' into this tree, and issue the configure/make
> commands.
Alas, no joy; again, "make" does nothing.
These Makefiles are cleverer than I am, I can't quite figure ou
2004-06-15T14:52:53 Simon Marlow:
> On 15 June 2004 14:18, Bennett Todd wrote:
> > ./distrib/hc-build ...
> > ./configure --with-ghc=`pwd`/ghc/compiler/ghc-inplace
> > make
> >
> > That last make didn't do anything.
>
> After hc-build, you should unpack a completely fresh GHC source tree,
> somew
On 15 June 2004 14:18, Bennett Todd wrote:
> 2004-06-14T16:06:05 Simon Marlow:
>> You probably don't want to install the registerised build; just use
>> it to build a fresh tree:
>>
>> $ ./configure
>> --with-ghc=/unregisterised-build/ghc/compiler/ghc-inplace
>> $ make
>
> Everything was fi
2004-06-14T16:06:05 Simon Marlow:
> You probably don't want to install the registerised build; just use it
> to build a fresh tree:
>
> $ ./configure
> --with-ghc=/unregisterised-build/ghc/compiler/ghc-inplace
> $ make
Everything was fine up to there, but "make" does nothing at all.
I follow
On 14 June 2004 21:57, Gerd M wrote:
> Well I just tried it and that's what happened:
>
> ==fptools== make boot - --no-print-directory -r;
> in ghc-6.2.1/ghc/utils/ghc-pkg
>
---
This was causing the error:
version = tail "\
\ GHC_PKG_VERSION"
However, when i moved it all in one line it worked and i got as far as this
but i think that's the end of the line for now:
==fptools== make boot -wr;
in ghc
Well I just tried it and that's what happened:
==fptools== make boot - --no-print-directory -r;
in ghc-6.2.1/ghc/utils/ghc-pkg
ghc-test/usr/bin/ghc -M -o
2004-06-14T16:06:05 Simon Marlow:
> You probably don't want to install the registerised build; just use it
> to build a fresh tree:
>
> $ ./configure
> --with-ghc=/unregisterised-build/ghc/compiler/ghc-inplace
> $ make
Thanks, I'll give it another go. It'll be a few days before I can
get back
On 02 June 2004 18:40, Bennett Todd wrote:
> 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 t
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 10:00:38AM +, Gabriel Ebner wrote:
> 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.
I think this should work (un
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
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
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
simonmar:
> On 31 May 2004 20:53, scott west wrote:
>
> > Well, I just poked and proded the build a bit more, and got it to
> > complete and install, with the same result as you. Seg faults
> > immediately and that's it. Hmm, any else had any experience with this?
>
> The amd64 port isn't really
On 31 May 2004 20:53, scott west wrote:
> Well, I just poked and proded the build a bit more, and got it to
> complete and install, with the same result as you. Seg faults
> immediately and that's it. Hmm, any else had any experience with this?
The amd64 port isn't really there yet. It works unr
Well, I just poked and proded the build a bit more, and got it to
complete and install, with the same result as you. Seg faults
immediately and that's it. Hmm, any else had any experience with this?
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTE
Hello,
scott west wrote:
> Next, I tried, after using the supplied hc-boot script (which did
> complete), to do a make install... this also fails with:
> ghc-6.2.1: error: directory portion of "stage2/absCSyn/AbsCSyn.o" does
> not exist (used with "-o" option.)
As outlined in "Porting GHC", I did
That's great! Well done Don!
Simon
| -Original Message-
| From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:glasgow-haskell-users-
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Donald Bruce Stewart
| Sent: 19 April 2004 08:04
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Subject: amd64 seems to work
|
| Hey,
|
| OVERALL SUMMARY
51 matches
Mail list logo
