On 25/02/2012 16:51, Johan Tibell wrote:
Hi!
I'm trying to understand the interaction between the -A and -H RTS
flags. The documentation at
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/7.4.1/html/users_guide/runtime-control.html
says that if you use -H (with or without an argument) it implicitly
On 17/02/2012 22:51, John Meacham wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Simon Marlowmarlo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/02/12 19:36, John Meacham wrote:
It isn't local to a file though because it changes the ABI, for instance
void foo(off_t *x);
it will blow up if called from a file with a
On 17/02/2012 20:10, Johan Tibell wrote:
nofib probably has, to a first approximation, zero strictness annotations.
Because most of the programs in there predate the addition of strictness
annotations to Haskell.
That's good for us.
In what way? The nofib programs have no strictness
On 17/02/2012 18:12, Evan Laforge wrote:
Sure, except that if the server is to be used by multiple clients, you will
get clashes in the PIT when say two clients both try to compile a module
with the same name.
The PIT is indexed by Module, which is basically the pair
(package,modulename), and
When you said strict my brain read UNPACK. If there are no strictness
annotations nofib isn't of much use in this experiment.
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
Hi Simon,
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:25 AM, Simon Marlow marlo...@gmail.com wrote:
Think of -Hsize as a variable -A option. It says: I want to use at least
size bytes, so use whatever is left over to increase the -A value.
Doesn't that describe exactly what it means?
Maybe. Let me start with
Evan Laforge wrote:
Is there something that changed in 7.4.1 that would cause it to decide
to interpret .hs files instead of loading their .o files? E.g.:
Brandon Allbery wrote:
I thought this was deliberate because the debugger won't work with object
files?
Oh I hope not. I almost never
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Yitzchak Gale g...@sefer.org wrote:
Evan Laforge wrote:
Is there something that changed in 7.4.1 that would cause it to decide
to interpret .hs files instead of loading their .o files? E.g.:
Brandon Allbery wrote:
I thought this was deliberate because the
On Monday 27 February 2012, 18:56:47, Yitzchak Gale wrote:
It's nice if there is a way for experts to load .o files
in GHCi, e.g., for the rare case where the performance
difference for some specific module is so great that you
can't work effectively interactively in some other module
that
Greg Weber greg at gregweber.info writes:
What on earth do you mean by not automatically abstract
over fields?
Abstraction over fields is the ability to write a function that works
on two records with the same field label.
Thanks Greg, I see you've put something on the wiki about
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 4:52 PM, AntC anthony_clay...@clear.net.nz wrote:
And can use it, for example:
getF lastName cust1
getF fullName person2
I don't think you can do this is SORF (but please check with SPJ). In
particular, I don't think you could call this function and pass an
Greg Weber greg at gregweber.info writes:
No, I don't think anybody has a satisfactory approach to
updating polymorphic/higher-ranked fields. (DORF mentions
one, but it's a ghastly hack.
So are the proposals dead until this is tackled, or should SORF/DORF
propose not to allow that?
12 matches
Mail list logo
