Re: GHC include files
"Manuel M. T. Chakravarty" wrote: This is exactly what the `...-config' script that I was talking about is supposed to do. Now we can argue whether that should be part of `ghc' proper or an extra script. An extra script at least has the advantage that it is easier to maintain manual in case somebody moves a tree or so. On the other hand, wrapping it into the ghc command will make a version mismatch when someone moves files around slightly less likely.
cvs update - patch: invalid options
Hello there, When doing cvs updates I get a lot of errors of the form patch: Invalid options. patch: Usage: patch [-blNR] [-c|-e|-n] [-d dir] [-D define] [-i patchfile]\ [-o outfile] [-p num] [-r rejectfile] [file] cvs update: could not patch ParseIface.y; will refetch Should I ignore these or look for a different patch? Thanks in advance. Regards, Marc van Dongen -- Marc van Dongen, CS Dept | phone: +353 21 903578 University College Cork, NUIC | Fax: +353 21 903113 College Road, Cork, Ireland | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: cvs update - patch: invalid options
Marc van Dongen wrote: Hello there, When doing cvs updates I get a lot of errors of the form patch: Invalid options. patch: Usage: patch [-blNR] [-c|-e|-n] [-d dir] [-D define] [-i patchfile]\ [-o outfile] [-p num] [-r rejectfile] [file] cvs update: could not patch ParseIface.y; will refetch Should I ignore these or look for a different patch? My first reaction would be to look for a different CVS, like GNU CVS 1.10. If you're already using that, get the GNU patch as well (which has many more options than most patches).
Re: cvs update - patch: invalid options
George Russell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: [...] : Should I ignore these or look for a different patch? : My first reaction would be to look for a different CVS, like GNU CVS 1.10. If you're : already using that, get the GNU patch as well (which has many more options than : most patches). Thanks. I think my patch was too old. Regards, Marc
Re: cvs update - patch: invalid options
Julian Seward (Intl Vendor) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: [patch problems] : This is the one we use: : : cam-02-unx:~/Feb24/fpt/ghc$ patch -v : patch 2.5 : Copyright 1988 Larry Wall : Copyright 1997 Free Software Foundation, Inc. : : It has never given me any problems. I think it is part of the : GNU textutils package. Perhaps you are using a Solaris implementation : instead? I just installed gnu patch. I thought I should mention because if this happens on other systems as well then maybe it should be recommended to use a different patch. Regards, Marc
An end to parallel frustrations
Hi! I've tried to compile parfib with versions: 4.04, 4.06, 3.02, 0.29, under Solaris and/or Linux. With version 4.04 and 4.06, I never managed to get to that stage. I managed to compile 'Main.lhs' to 'Main.o', but couldn't like: it seems that all library for GPH are missing in those versions. This is the sequence of messages that I received (compiling with ghc-4.04 under Solaris): I'm afraid the parallel code, as it is included in 4.06, is not quite working, yet. We included it in 4.06 in order to have it in the mainstream of the development. Now, the good news is that since 4.06 was released I managed to produce a running version of GUM 4.06 in our installation here at Heriot-Watt. At the moment I am stress testing this version. Simple parallel programs are running quite merrily, but there are the occasional problems with larger programs I am tracking down as we speak. Therefore I haven't officially released this current version. But overall we should be within weeks of a release of the parallel code. I am delighted to hear that there are people out there planning to use GPH and GUM straight away! So, I'll push that much harder to have a pick-and-play version available as soon as possible. Cheers, -- Hans Wolfgang
Re: Comparing frustrations ...
Hi Nicolas! I've tried to compile parfib with versions: 4.04, 4.06, 3.02, 0.29, under Solaris and/or Linux. With version 4.04 and 4.06, I never managed to get to that stage. I managed to compile 'Main.lhs' to 'Main.o', but couldn't like: it seems that all library for GPH are missing in those versions. This is the sequence of messages that I received (compiling with ghc-4.04 under Solaris): == (1) first go make ghc -c -parallel -fvia-C -fglasgow-exts -cpp Main.lhs -o Main.o ghc: unrecognised option: -fstack-check Main.lhs:3: Could not find valid interface file `Prelude' Main.lhs:5: Could not find valid interface file `Parallel' Compilation had errors *** Error code 1 make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `Main.o' (2) with -i option (a file 'Main.o' was generated) ghc -c -parallel -fvia-C -fglasgow-exts -i/usr/local/ghc-4.04/lib/ghc-4.04/imports/concurrent:/usr/local/ghc-4.04/lib/ghc-4.04/imports/std -cpp Main.lhs -o Main.o ghc: unrecognised option: -fstack-check ghc: module version changed to 1; reason: no old .hi file Usage: For basic information, try the `-help' option. (3) 'make' again osaka: make ghc -parallel -fvia-C -fglasgow-exts -cpp -o parfib *.o ghc: unrecognised option: -fstack-check ld: fatal: library -lHSconcurrent_mp: not found ld: fatal: library -lHSexts_mp: not found ld: fatal: library -lHS_mp: not found ld: fatal: library -lHSrts_mp: not found ld: fatal: File processing errors. No output written to parfib *** Error code 1 make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `parfib' I couldn't get version 0.29 running, and I was informed by Alvaro J Rebon that his package for 3.10 definitely doesn't work with most recent versions of glibc. He promissed a few weeks ago that he would try to get me a package with GHC+GPH running for RedHat Linux 6.1. I remember asking him whether GPH was some experimental feature of GHC (not completely tested.) He assured me that GPH is OK and he is using it himself. So... I decided to wait for a while. Regards, Raul Lopes == Nicolas wrote Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 18:51:07 -0300 (GMT-0300) From: Nicolas Wolovick [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-UIDL: 4d08dc87493ab711c182cb141002c15a I finally managed to avoid the error about missing Prelude and Parallel interface including the appropriate directories with -i directive. However, there are new errors in the link stage relating undefined references to `_fxstat' and `__setjmp'. Did you get the same results? And one final question. Do the developers say to you that there's _no_ GHC version that properly includes GPH? Regards, Nicolas Wolovick On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Raul Henriques C. Lopes wrote: Hi! No. I never managed to get GPH running. I've tried GHC 3.03, 0.29, 4.4, 4.6 under Linux and Solaris. I even asked one of the members of the GHC team about that, he said he would get me a package running for Red Hat Linux 6.1, but that was some 3 weeks ago, and until now I didn't have any return. I'm starting to think that old C+MPI is a safer combination. I'll keep your e-mail if I do get any new info, I'l let you know. Raul
