C.M.Brown wrote:
I've noticed that when you run ./configure on a ghc build lot's of
repetition occurs. A lot of the time the same checks are being performed for
each configure file in the ghc hierarchy. Could it be possible if some of
these checks could be done once at a high level and then
Hi Simon,
Mainly this is due to modularity: many of the library packages can be built
entirely separately from GHC, so their configure scripts are designed to be
standalone.
Yes, I guess it would be a fair bit of work to have it check that you are
building the whole of GHC as opposed to
Mainly this is due to modularity: many of the library packages can be built
entirely separately from GHC, so their configure scripts are designed to be
standalone.
library packages are haskell packages, and much of the configuration data
should be common (plus a few package-specific checks).
Following the snapshot distribution link on GHC's download page yields this
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/dist/current/dist/ghc-6.7.20070404-i386-unknown-mingw32.tar.bz2
That seems to be a tar bundle for Windows; it's not an msi but if you unpack it
you should be able to run it
I'm replying to a rather old thread here, about unboxing in functions. Duncan
had a continuation monad which passed around some data type that would be nice
to unbox. You discussed strictness annotations in function types as a potential
solution. I have a different tack on the problem which seems
On 4/29/07, Ian Lynagh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Bas,
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 11:54:35AM +, Bas van Dijk wrote:
I'm trying to build GHC from darcs. Unfortunately compilation fails
with the following error:
...
cpphs: #error Please define LEFTMOST_BIT to be 2^(SIZEOF_HSWORD*8-1)
in
Okay, first steps:
1. A Trac ticket (#1318,
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/1318) (is feature request a
good category, versus task?)
2. A test-case to make sure I don't break anything with existing '-'
syntax. I'm guessing it should go in
testsuite/tests/ghc-regress/parser/should_run/,
