Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 03:02:55PM +, C.M.Brown wrote:
Is there a way for GHC on OS X to find where it was run from, so that it
can find package.conf?
The command:
ghc --print-libdir
should do it.
But the way that knows what to print on unix machines is that ghc is
Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
this year are discharged (ie, in about two weeks). Secondly, the really
unsatisfactory thing about frameworks for readline and gmp is that it
entails that programs compiled with GHC will also depend on at least the
GMP framework.
I'd really like to have a
Christian Maeder wrote:
Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 03:02:55PM +, C.M.Brown wrote:
Is there a way for GHC on OS X to find where it was run from, so that it
can find package.conf?
The command:
ghc --print-libdir
should do it.
But the way that knows what to print on unix
Simon Marlow wrote:
Christian Maeder wrote:
Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 03:02:55PM +, C.M.Brown wrote:
Is there a way for GHC on OS X to find where it was run from, so
that it
can find package.conf?
The command:
ghc --print-libdir
should do it.
But the way that knows
On Nov 19, 2007 10:35 AM, Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
pwd gives you the directory that the script was invoked *from*, not the
directory in which the script resides. This is a common problem on Unix:
there's no general way to find out the location of a binary.
Well, you can always
On Nov 19, 2007 10:51 AM, Alfonso Acosta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, you can always combine the first argument of the script ($0) for
absolute paths and combine it with with pwd for relative ones.
I meant _use_ the first argument of the script ($0) for absolute paths
and combine it with pwd
Alfonso Acosta wrote:
On Nov 19, 2007 10:51 AM, Alfonso Acosta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, you can always combine the first argument of the script ($0) for
absolute paths and combine it with with pwd for relative ones.
I meant _use_ the first argument of the script ($0) for absolute paths
Christian Maeder wrote:
Alfonso Acosta wrote:
On Nov 19, 2007 10:51 AM, Alfonso Acosta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, you can always combine the first argument of the script ($0) for
absolute paths and combine it with with pwd for relative ones.
I meant _use_ the first argument of the script
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are two possible avenues to proceed along. The first is to figure out
from the crashing stage2 compiler what is going wrong to cause the segfault.
I bet it would be easier to find a smaller program that crashes. Start
from hello world, or try the programs in
Simon, as usual, is right. It's been quite a while since I last
seriously coded in C. From the exec* man page:
The first argument, *by convention*, should point to the file name
associated with the file being executed.
However, if nothing better is found I guess it's better to rely on an
An additional sanity check of topdir makes sense then.
Christian
Alfonso Acosta wrote:
Simon, as usual, is right. It's been quite a while since I last
seriously coded in C. From the exec* man page:
The first argument, *by convention*, should point to the file name
associated with the file
may i suggest a different approach? most shells have commands
to list programs in PATH beyond the first match, such as
'whereis ssh', 'which -a ssh', or 'type -a ssh'. now, this won't
help directly because the ghc tool in question might not be on
the PATH.
but as this issue is so widespread,
I use STG-bindings generated by GHC during CoreToSTG phase. What is
the order of this bindings is it random or does it correspond to
original source code or does it reflect the dependency structure of
the program?
If I define the following in my program:
data Numeral = Zero | Succ Numeral
zero =
You probably want -ddump-simpl to print Core
Yes, the bindings should be in dependency order. They certainly seem to be for
me
Simon
Foo.hs
data Numeral = Zero | Succ Numeral
zero = Zero
one = Succ zero
ten = Succ one
ghc -c -ddump-stg -ddump-simpl Foo.hs
Tidy Core
If you want to get the path to the main executable on Mac OS X, use
_NSGetExecutablePath. See:
man 3 dyld
Deborah
On Nov 19, 2007, at 4:07 AM, Christian Maeder wrote:
An additional sanity check of topdir makes sense then.
Christian
Alfonso Acosta wrote:
Simon, as usual, is right. It's
Simon Peyton-Jones writes:
Yes, the bindings should be in dependency order. They certainly seem to be for me
Simon
I always - naively - thought that it is a non-problem. How many times have
I written stuff like that:...
ping = 0 : pong
pong = 1 : ping
It seems that I don't understand
On Nov 19, 2007 9:39 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I always - naively - thought that it is a non-problem. How many times have
I written stuff like that:...
ping = 0 : pong
pong = 1 : ping
It seems that I don't understand the question of Victor Nazarov, nor the
answer of SPJ...
This is
STG syntax:
Foo.zero = NO_CCS Foo.Zero! [];
SRT(Foo.zero): []
Foo.one = NO_CCS Foo.Succ! [Foo.Zero];
SRT(Foo.one): []
Foo.ten = NO_CCS Foo.Succ! [Foo.one];
SRT(Foo.ten): []
Foo.Zero = NO_CCS Foo.Zero! [];
SRT(Foo.Zero): []
Foo.Succ = \r [eta_s68]
I wrote about binding order:
I always - naively - thought that it is a non-problem. How many times have
I written stuff like that:...
ping = 0 : pong
pong = 1 : ping
It seems that I don't understand the question of Victor Nazarov, nor the
answer of SPJ...
This is the question about
Deborah Goldsmith wrote,
If you want to get the path to the main executable on Mac OS X, use
_NSGetExecutablePath. See:
man 3 dyld
That's exactly what we need. The man page is on the web for those
without a mac:
20 matches
Mail list logo
