| Ps. It is surprising that performance bugs don't get high
| priority, now that distractions like extralibs are out of the
| ghc picture?
Generally we prioritise bugs that appear to be show-stoppers, and/or are on a
tier-1 platform. Having extralibs out of the way is a help, but as
| Perhaps CPP shouldn't be a pragma, just a command-line flag? It seems
| to be the only one that affects/involves preprocessor(s). AFAICT, the
| others all affect the haskell compiler stage.
Yes, it does seem anomalous. I suppose the motivation is that some modules
might need CPP and some not,
Is there still a need for CPP now that Template Haskell exists?
2009/2/11 Simon Peyton-Jones simo...@microsoft.com:
| Perhaps CPP shouldn't be a pragma, just a command-line flag? It seems
| to be the only one that affects/involves preprocessor(s). AFAICT, the
| others all affect the haskell
Hi
Is there still a need for CPP now that Template Haskell exists?
Yes. For a start you might need CPP to switch between Haskell
compilers that do and don't support Template Haskell! Both
technologies do different things, CPP is great for conditional
compilation based on compiler
On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 13:43 +, Simon Marlow wrote:
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
I'm guessing a bit here, but it looks as if you intend this:
* GHC should read Foo.hs, and see {-# LANGUAGE CPP #-}
* Then it should run cpp
* Then it should look *again* in the result of running cpp,
Currently, hsc2hs (as shipped with GHC) cannot be used with just
hsc2hs Foo.hsc
as it cannot find HsFFI.h
The hsc2hs repo includes a shell script (yes, I know, no good on Windows)
called hsc2hs.wrapper that already adds some default arguments.
(nhc98 has a modified version of the script,
Here is an apparent bug in ghc's specialisation rules. The rewrite rule
generated by a SPECIALISE pragma seems to want to pattern-match on exact
dictionaries (as well as types). But the compiler is not necessarily
able to fully resolve dictionaries before the rules are supposed to
fire.
First,
That should not happen. Can you boil out a test case and make a Trac ticket?
When I try the same thing it works:
Spec.hs: f :: Num a = a - a
{-# SPECIALISE f :: Int - Int #-}
f x = x+2
ghc -c -ddump-rules -O Spec.hs
Top-level
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 01:31:24PM +, Simon Marlow wrote:
Remi Turk wrote:
On Sat, Feb 07, 2009 at 12:39:03AM -0500, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On 2009 Feb 5, at 5:49, Remi Turk wrote:
SPJ agreed with the idea itself, but suggested an alternative set
of commands:
:info Show
I was wondering if anyone could point me to a more in-depth explanation of
why we are (currently) restricted to using a special-purpose standard
Prelude when writing vectorised code with DPH. We're prototyping using
several data-parallel languages for a research project here at Northwestern
James Swaine:
I was wondering if anyone could point me to a more in-depth
explanation of why we are (currently) restricted to using a special-
purpose standard Prelude when writing vectorised code with DPH.
The reason is simply that the standard version of the Prelude uses
Haskell features
11 matches
Mail list logo
