Re: Native Threads in the RTS

2002-11-27 Thread Johan Steunenberg
Typo: Being fresh to Haskell, I suggest that the naming continues to be native and free. I did mean native and green Have a nice day, once again. Johan Steunenberg ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Template Haskell

2002-11-27 Thread Simon Peyton-Jones
If you look in the manual you'll see that it says you can only compile-time-call a function that is in a separate module. So put 'pr/gen/parse' in a separate module and you'll be fine. The manual may not be very clear... pls help me improve it. S | -Original Message- | From: Mike

RE: Native Threads in the RTS

2002-11-27 Thread Simon Marlow
When a bound foreign exported function is invoked [by foreign code], the implementation checks whether a Haskell thread is associated with the current OS thread. If there is one, this Haskell thread is used to execute the callback. If there is none, a new Haskell thread is created and

RE: incremental linking?

2002-11-27 Thread Simon Marlow
More fun with Haskell-in-the-large: linking time has become the main bottleneck in our development cycle. The standard solution would be to use an incremental linker, but it seems that gnu does not yet support this:-| Hmm, I've never heard of linking being a bottleneck. Even GHC itself

Re: Native Threads in the RTS

2002-11-27 Thread Alastair Reid
Are you sure you intend to change the type of forkIO? Currently it's forkIO :: IO () - IO ThreadId Sorry, no, I did not. -- Alastair ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: incremental linking?

2002-11-27 Thread C.Reinke
Hmm, I've never heard of linking being a bottleneck. Even GHC itself links in about 3-4 seconds here. One common problem is that linking on a network filesystem takes a *lot* longer than linking objects from a local disk. It's always a good idea to keep the build tree on the local disk,

RE: incremental linking?

2002-11-27 Thread Simon Marlow
Unfortunately, we're not talking seconds, but coffee-breaks of linking times on our Sun (yes, the stuff is in the range of a large compiler - we're fortunate enough to be able to build on rather substantial third-party packages, think haskell-in-haskell frontend distributed over unusually

Re: incremental linking?

2002-11-27 Thread Andre Pang
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 09:50:56AM -, Simon Marlow wrote: More fun with Haskell-in-the-large: linking time has become the main bottleneck in our development cycle. The standard solution would be to use an incremental linker, but it seems that gnu does not yet support this:-| Hmm,

RE: incremental linking?

2002-11-27 Thread Simon Marlow
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 09:50:56AM -, Simon Marlow wrote: More fun with Haskell-in-the-large: linking time has become the main bottleneck in our development cycle. The standard solution would be to use an incremental linker, but it seems that gnu does not yet support this:-|

RE: incremental linking?

2002-11-27 Thread Hal Daume III
More fun with Haskell-in-the-large: linking time has become the main bottleneck in our development cycle. The standard solution would be to use an incremental linker, but it seems that gnu does not yet support this:-| Hmm, I've never heard of linking being a bottleneck. Even GHC itself

RE: incremental linking?

2002-11-27 Thread Simon Marlow
More fun with Haskell-in-the-large: linking time has become the main bottleneck in our development cycle. The standard solution would be to use an incremental linker, but it seems that gnu does not yet support this:-| Hmm, I've never heard of linking being a bottleneck. Even

Re: Native Threads in the RTS

2002-11-27 Thread Wolfgang Thaller
Simon Marlow wrote: I don't see the problem with forking a new Haskell thread for each foreign export, and associating it with the current native thread if the foreign export is marked bound. It does mean we can get multiple Haskell threads bound to the same native thread, but only one can be

Re: incremental linking?

2002-11-27 Thread Duncan Coutts
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 15:20:44 - Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The runtime loader stuff I'm working on[1] takes around 10 seconds to compile ... and 3 minutes to link it with libHSbase and libHSrts. (This is on a 500MHz PIII). Linking is a huge bottleneck once you start

Re: incremental linking?

2002-11-27 Thread John Meacham
I too am getting link times in the several minutes range for my modestly sized project, I am on a standalone dual-cpu redhat linux box with 5.04.1 (no nfs, no nuttin') the project is available at http://repetae.net/john/computer/ginsu/ I think there is definatly something fishy going on. I don't

Re: Template Haskell

2002-11-27 Thread Mike Thomas
Thanks Simon. If you look in the manual you'll see that it says you can only compile-time-call a function that is in a separate module. So put 'pr/gen/parse' in a separate module and you'll be fine. My fault really as I only have the raw SGML and it sends me up the wall to try and read it.

Re: incremental linking?

2002-11-27 Thread Andre Pang
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 03:55:54PM -, Simon Marlow wrote: Those who experience long link times (longer than a few seconds), please reply with your - platform / OS version - versions of relevent things (GHC, GCC, binutils). - time to link 'main = print hello'. Platform: Debian