Brian,
Sorry, I smash out emails without thinking and forgot GHC is
distributed with static archives in Windows. No more. Even if you
build the GHC runtime library from source as DLLs you will run into
another problem, as noted in the DLL-NOTES file (see http://
Esa,
In the July thread, (Repost) Replacement for GMP as Bignum: ARPREC?
Haskell?; OS X and OpenSSL, you wrote:
In past, I tried to get rid of GMP by replacing it with libtommath
http://math.libtomcrypt.com/
But I have given up for now - because of related and unrelated
problems.
Since
Esa,
What I have written here might not be the most useful guide to
start with, but maybe it is of help for other interested souls.
Many thanks for the notes; it would probably be better if more than
one programmer worked on it.
* The memory handling:
The idea on most bignum libs is
Hey Esa,
Another great instructive email! Thanks again! I will keep this
response short because I am sure you are busy and you have been more
than helpful so far. I also need to get back to working through the
code...
I hope my answer helps, but if it gets you more confused,
maybe
Hi Bulat,
don't forget about speed/memory efficiency of any programs that use
Integer just for case but really most of their numbers fit in 32/64
bits. i have one particular program of this type - it builds list of
all files on disk and Integers are used to save filesizes. i will be
glad if,
Simon,
(1) We'd be delighted to use a BSD-licensed alternative to GMP in GHC.
It's been a long-standing issue, just never quite important enough to
get done. If either or both of you are willing to put in the legwork,
and emerge with an implementation that we understand and can maintain,
we'd
Hi Bulat,
the same binary that also wants to use GMP. (Of course, we could
*copy*
GMP, changing all the function names. That would eliminate the
problem!)
isn't it rather easy task for some automated tool? i think that even
existing tools may be found
I know copyrights are weak compared
Simon PJ, Simon, Esa and John,
Here is an update on what I have been doing so far in making a grand
attempt to replace GMP.
(1) evaluate replacement libraries
LibTomMath:
Pros-
* has all the operators GMP offered
Cons-
*
Einar,
In my previous email I wrote something potentially confusing (really
a typo):
For developers (commercial or open source), the OpenSSL license
only mentions redistribution of the OpenSSL code in binary form
(paragraph 2). In this context binary form means the complete
program
Einar,
*This product includes software developed by the OpenSSL Project
*for use in the OpenSSL Toolkit (http://www.openssl.org/).
All developers would have to do is include the acknowledgment stated
above.
I think this is not bad for specific applications, but forcing this
upon all
Reilly,
... this shouldn't prohibit linking
GMP in dynamically, should it? It's just a C library and GCC should
happily generate relocatable code. As a dynamically linked library,
there should be no tainting issues to worry about even if the
dynamically linked code is shipped with the
Florian,
This is the offending part:
* 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this
software
*must display the following acknowledgement:
*This product includes cryptographic software written by
* Eric Young ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
*The word
Simon PJ and Bulat,
[the] ForeignPtr
solution [has] gotten a lot cheaper in GHC 6.6 than it used to be, so
it's worth trying. A merit of the approach is that is avoids fiddling
with the bignum allocator at all.
I actually did not know that until today; I have tried to keep up
with the
: Simon Marlow, Simon Peyton-Jones and the rest of the
GHC Team are primarily interested in performance and the integrity of
the RTS (no one would be happy if the RTS broke for bad FFI calls).
Thanks for the encouragement.
Best regards,
Peter Tanski
John,
After all on the average call where an object of that
size is free already it is a single array lookup, we have:
(a) fetch pointer (one read)
(b) fetch next (one read)
(c) store next as current (one write)
This is true for memory access; it is not true for memory
allocation. I do
John,
Have you carefully investigated the OpenSSL license? We in Debian
have
had repeated problems since the OpenSSL license is, as written,
incompatible with the GPL (even linking to OpenSSL is incompatible
with
the GPL). I would hate to have a situation where all GHC-compiled
programs
Simon,
... At the moment,
the only packages you can add in this way are:
ALUT, HGL, HUnit, OpenAL, OpenGL, QuickCheck, X11, cgi,
fgl, haskell-src, html, mtl, network, parsec, time, xhtml
... instead include smaller and more fundamental
packages: ByteString, regexps,
Hi Bulat,
sorry, but you miscitated me and seems to misinterpret whole idea:
Sorry about that. I put the emphasis on your mention of
fundamental, almost to the exclusion of compiler-builds. My point
was that there are two design considerations when you are designing a
compiler system:
Hello Thorkil,
I am very sorry for the late reply. I have been extremely busy and I
wanted to give you a coherent answer.
For a brief overview of the speed of the libraries I looked at
carefully, see
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/ReplacingGMPNotes
(I added a few charts to show
Hello Jeremy,I don't know if anyone has gotten back to you on this yet. I have not myself done an unregisterised build of GHC before, but I thought you should at least hear something. The people who know about this all seem to be at the ICFP programme that has been going on since Thursday; they
Welcome back! Since Data.Bits is not defined in the Haskell 1998
standard, are we free to change the implementation of Data.Bits? if
we are free to change the implementation of Data.Bits, would it be
all right to change the operation of rotate, rotateL and rotateR over
unbounded types
I can think of is to make it behave like shift.
On Sep 18, 2006, at 23:46 , Peter Tanski wrote:
Welcome back! Since Data.Bits is not defined in the Haskell 1998
standard, are we free to change the implementation of Data.Bits?
if we are free to change the implementation of Data.Bits, would
On Sep 19, 2006, at 3:38 PM, Lemmih wrote:
On 9/19/06, Peter Tanski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't have a particular implementation in mind but as a general
idea it would make the treatment of Integers the same as the
treatment of the standard-size bounded ints. A possible
implementation
On Sep 19, 2006, at 3:28 PM, Neil Mitchell wrote:
Hi,
Welcome back! Since Data.Bits is not defined in the Haskell 1998
standard, are we free to change the implementation of Data.Bits?
No! If you do things like this, randomly changing the semantics of
functions, people will come round to
Hello all,
I made another update to the notes on Replacing GMP, at http://
hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/ReplacingGMPNotes . It's pretty
basic and you'd probably find it shabby, but comments, modifications
appreciated. I am still in the throes of trying to *portably* beat
GMP for
On Nov 17, 2006, at 7:24 PM, Claus Reinke wrote:
it seems that haskell versions of bignums is pretty much gone from
more recent discussions of gmp replacements. now, I assume that
there are lots of optimizations that keep gmp popular that one
wouldn't want to have to reproduce, so that a
Hi Jeremy,
On Nov 17, 2006, at 10:34 PM, Jeremy Shaw wrote:
At Sat, 18 Nov 2006 00:44:32 +,
Neil Mitchell wrote
One advantage you probably haven't thought of is the size of the
binary. ...
On a related note -- dropping the gmp requirement would also make it
easier to port yhc to
On Nov 19, 2006, at 3:20 PM, Jeremy Shaw wrote:
At Sun, 19 Nov 2006 13:46:10 -0500, Peter Tanski wrote:
What is the problem building GMP for PalmOS? According to the GMP
install documentation, it supports ARM and Motorola's m68k
processors, so you would not be using generic C code. You
On Nov 22, 2006, at 8:39 PM, Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
p.tanski:
to my knowledge, that would be the first Haskell
implementation for PalmOS...
Pretty sure Tony Sloane et al at Macquarie have had nhc98 running
on the
palm for quite a while. They've recently moved to YHC though, iirc.
On Dec 29, 2006, at 8:32 AM, Thorkil Naur wrote:
On Friday 01 September 2006 06:43, Peter Tanski wrote:
...
For a brief overview of the speed of the libraries I looked at
carefully, see http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/
ReplacingGMPNotes (I added a few charts to show the speed
Hello Thorkil,
I updated the wiki Replacing GMP/The Current GMP Implementation page
with some introductory notes. I hope the pretty graphic cuts down on
a lot of wording necessary. There is no discussion of the Cmm
implementation as that is contained in Esa's posts to the GHC users
of time I am running a bit late.)
Cheers,
Peter Tanski
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
this is:
demarcate a code block:
{{{
#!html
pre
font color=OrangetopLevelFunction/font ...
/pre
}}}
Thanks,
Peter Tanski
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
(oc-fileSize, loadObj(image));
+# endif
+
but did not add your change back in.
Cheers,
Peter Tanski
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
into the source code practically from scratch (perhaps grabbing
an archive of 6.1 would give you a better start).
Cheers,
Peter Tanski
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo
) and see what problems you run into.
Cheers,
Peter Tanski
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Spencer Janssen wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 08:21:50 +1000
skaller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One way to measure this is: if you removed GHC and applications,
and there are (necessarily) no users of the remaining library
package .. the library package shouldn't be in the global public
place
skaller wrote:
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 19:40 -0500, Spencer Janssen wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 08:21:50 +1000
skaller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One way to measure this is: if you removed GHC and applications,
and there are (necessarily) no users of the remaining library
package .. the library
On Jun 18, 2007, at 6:06 PM, Stefan O'Rear wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 11:56:57AM -0400, Peter Tanski wrote:
Now each GHC-Haskell-based program installer would search /usr/local/
lib for, say, libHSrts_dyn-6.6.1.dylib and install that version if
necessary. What happens on uninstall
On Jun 19, 2007, at 4:05 AM, Simon Marlow wrote:
Peter Tanski wrote:
Now each GHC-Haskell-based program installer would search /usr/
local/lib for, say, libHSrts_dyn-6.6.1.dylib and install that
version if necessary. What happens on uninstall?...
That is why I think your idea was good: put
skaller wrote:
On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 12:23 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello glasgow-haskell-users,
are you plan to implement 64-bit windows GHC version?
The main thing standing in the way of this is the lack of a 64-
bit port of
mingw.
Why do you need mingw?
Simon Marlow wrote:
GHC *developers* wouldn't be any better off either. You'd still
need either
Cygwin or MSYS for the build environment. There's no way I'm using
MS build
tools, ugh.
The way I have it set up (so far) is as simple as running configure
and make--all from the command
On Jun 21, 2007, at 4:16 AM, Simon Marlow wrote:
Peter Tanski wrote:
skaller wrote:
Why do you need mingw? What's wrong with MSVC++?
The largest problem is the build system: GHC uses autoconf with
custom makefiles.
So autoconf won't work with MSVC++, that is indeed a problem
Brian Hulley wrote:
To port GHC to a completely new platform, you'd of course need a
Haskell
compiler or interpreter already. However to bootstrap the process
only a
slow interpreter would be needed so as long as a portable pre-built
bytecode version was available for download the only thing
On Jun 22, 2007, at 9:45 AM, Simon Marlow wrote:
skaller wrote:
On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 12:03 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
Ok, you clearly have looked at a lot more build systems than I
have. So you think there's a shift from autoconf-style figure
out the configuration by running tests to
On Jun 22, 2007, at 7:03 AM, Simon Marlow wrote:
In fact, to build a source distribution on Windows, there are only
3 dependencies: GHC, Mingw and (either MSYS or Cygwin).
To build from darcs, you also need: darcs, Happy, and Alex. To
build docs, you also need Haddock. To run the
On Jun 22, 2007, at 11:42 AM, Simon Marlow wrote:
Peter Tanski wrote:
A bit invasive (it involves modifying the make rules so they take
an object-suffix variable). Instead of the current suffix.mk:
$(odir_)%.$(way_)o : %.hc
it should be:
$(odir_)%.$(way_)$(obj_sfx) : %.hc
or some
On Jun 25, 2007, at 5:19 AM, Simon Marlow wrote:
Yes it is easy but now all Makefiles must be changed to use $
(osuf), such as this line in rts/Makefile:
378: %.$(way_)o : %.cmm $(H_FILES),
for what will be a (hopefully) temporary Windows build.
I bet there are only a few makefiles that
On Jun 25, 2007, at 12:06 PM, skaller wrote:
On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 11:43 -0400, Peter Tanski wrote:
It would be much better to have a single build system. I would
gladly replace the whole thing ...
I am thinking of starting a new project (possibly as sourceforge)
to implement a new build
On Jun 25, 2007, at 12:55 PM, kyra wrote:
Certainly doable but it does present a conundrum: for the old GHC
(without builtin cl-support) the order for compilation seems to be:
compile/link command compile/link flags output source/
object files other flags
while for cl running link.exe or
On Jun 25, 2007, at 3:34 PM, skaller wrote:
On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 13:35 -0400, Peter Tanski wrote:
Maybe some gcc mimicing cl wrapper tailored specifically for GHC
building system could help? One more layer of indirection, but
could leave ghc driver relatively intact.
That's a good idea
On Jun 26, 2007, at 4:59 AM, Simon Marlow wrote:
Peter Tanski wrote:
I keep on referring to this as temporary because there are two
different builds here:
(1) the build using the old mingw-GHC, without option support for
CL; and,
(2) the build using the new Windows-native GHC.
Yes
keeps meaning that at GHC HQ we work on things that affect more
people. I doubt we can spare effort to design and implement a fix
in the near future -- we keep hoping someone else step up and
tackle it!
Peter Tanski did exactly that (he's the author of the
ReplacingGMPNotes above), but he's
Hello Benedikt,
I apologise for the late reply. I am travelling tomorrow but I will
try to get something an alpha implementation out by this Wednesday.
For now here are some preliminary answers:
On Sep 28, 2007, at 7:41 AM, Benedikt Huber wrote:
Am 18.09.2007 um 05:49 schrieb Peter
54 matches
Mail list logo
