Hi Nathan,
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Nathan Hüsken
nathan.hues...@posteo.de wrote:
I was succesfull in building ghc (pulled from git) to compile for
arm-linux-androideabi!
Great news!
Can you describe how you managed to build it and which environment you use?
main = putStrLn Hello,
On 11 January 2013 19:36, Nathan Hüsken nathan.hues...@posteo.de wrote:
Hi,
I was succesfull in building ghc (pulled from git) to compile for
arm-linux-androideabi!
Now using inplace/bin/ghc-stage1 -dcore-lint -debug I compiler this
Main.hs:
main = putStrLn Hello, World
I get an
There is some more success :).
When I do an unregisterised build, it works without segfault.
On 01/13/2013 11:16 AM, Bernhard Urban wrote:
Hi Nathan,
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Nathan Hüsken
nathan.hues...@posteo.de wrote:
I was succesfull in building ghc (pulled from git) to compile
Mmh, that does not seem to work.
(gdb) strace
warning: Couldn't determine the static tracepoint marker to probe
Static tracepoint 1 at 0x3f0588
On 01/13/2013 12:56 PM, Conrad Parker wrote:
On 11 January 2013 19:36, Nathan Hüsken nathan.hues...@posteo.de wrote:
Hi,
I was succesfull in
Ok, the instruction
ldr r1, [r0, #140] - tso = CurrentTSO
seems the assume that REG_Base is r0 (140 is the offset of the tso in
StgRegTable, to which the REG_Base register should point).
But according to MachRegs.h on arm architecture, REG_Base should be r4.
Ineed, when I do
p *(unsigned
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013, Neil Davies wrote:
Sounds like we're close - I must admit I've slightly lost track of the things
that need to be done.
Can we start collecting the pre-conditionds and steps, when each complete build
takes best part of a day, its difficult to keep the context.
So -
Understood
I've got another RPi supposed to arrive this week - would more computation
power help anyone out there?
Neil
On 13 Jan 2013, at 15:59, rocon...@theorem.ca wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013, Neil Davies wrote:
Sounds like we're close - I must admit I've slightly lost track of the
I sometimes run into trouble with lack of injectivity for type families.
I'm trying to understand what's at the heart of these difficulties and
whether I can avoid them. Also, whether some of the obstacles could be
overcome with simple improvements to GHC.
Here's a simple example:
{-# LANGUAGE
Hi,
How would you infer a from F a? Given bar :: Bool, I can't see how
one could go from Bool to F a = Bool and determine a uniquely.
My question is not completely retorical, if there is an answer I would
like to know it :-)
Gruss,
Christian
* Conal Elliott co...@conal.net [13.01.2013 20:13]:
Hello Conal,
The issue with your example is that it is ambiguous, so GHC can't figure
out how to instantiate the use of `foo`. It might be easier to see why
this is if you write it in this form:
foo :: (F a ~ b) = b
foo = ...
Now, we can see that only `b` appears on the RHS of the `=`, so
Hi Iavor,
Thanks for the remarks.
so there is really no way for GHC to figure out what is the intended value
for `a`.
Indeed. Though I wonder: does the type-checker really need to find a
binding for `a` in this case, i.e., given the equation `(forall a. F a) ==
(forall a'. F a')`?
-- Conal
Hi Christian,
Given bar :: Bool, I can't see how one could go from Bool to F a =
Bool and determine a uniquely.
The same question applies to foo :: Bool, right? Yet no error message
there.
Regards, - Conal
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Christian Höner zu Siederdissen
Hello,
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Conal Elliott co...@conal.net wrote:
so there is really no way for GHC to figure out what is the intended value
for `a`.
Indeed. Though I wonder: does the type-checker really need to find a
binding for `a` in this case, i.e., given the equation
On 12 January 2013 16:05, Ian Lynagh i...@well-typed.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 08:10:18PM +, Duncan Coutts wrote:
Either way, lemme know if this is all fine, and I'll make the 0.10.0.2
release.
Looks good, thanks! I've updated the GHC 7.6 repo to match the tag.
Ta muchly!
Hi Conal,
if you take your example program and write foo :: Bool, ghci accepts it?
For me it complains, and I would think rightly so, that couldn't match
expected type Fa with actual type Bool. It actually only works with the
following quite useless type instance F a = Bool.
By the way, using
Hi Conal,
I agree that your initial example is a little puzzling, and I'm glad that the
new ambiguity checker prevents both definitions, not just one.
However, your initial question seems broader than just this example. I have run
into this problem (wanting injective type functions) several
16 matches
Mail list logo
