Wed, 9 May 2001 13:26:42 -0700 (PDT), Thomas Hallock [EMAIL PROTECTED] pisze:
_Main_main_closure
___init_Main
This is because your module has a different name then Main.
__udivdi3
__umoddi3
__cmpdi2
__fixunsdfdi
__floatdidf
These symbols should be found in libgcc.a. I don't know why
Would it be possible to flush open file buffers on ctrl-C?
I realise I could do this with hSetBuffering though with some
performance cost.
I also appreciate that it could be a little tricky to implement (or,
maybe, really simple?) - but it would be really useful.
Well, you can set up a
Dear William,
using Manuel's SRPM I have built RPMs for SuSE 7.1. Would you
like to serve as a beta-tester for these builds? I am not
very confident whether the dependencies are ok. Generating the
documentation for GHC was a mess; the SGML tools in the
SuSE 7.1 distribution seem to be broken and
Hi William,
It's not your day, is it? :) You seem to have tripped over just about
all the nasty bugs in 5.00.
Hi, I'm trying to get GHC 5.00 installed on my SuSE 7.1 box. I have
tried (a) the binary distribution, (b) the source distribution, (c) a
CVS snapshot.
The binary
Hi,
I've managed to build the GHC 5.00 compiler on HP-UX, but when I try to
build the interactive bit, subsequent to this, I'm getting some complaints
about a function mkJumpToAddr in ByteCodeItBls.lhs. My question is, is
this only relevant to platforms with an NCG available and hence could I
The Illegal Instruction problem is known to us and will be
fixed in the upcoming 5.00.1 release, as will a bunch of
other bugs. We mistakenly configured GMP for i686-unknown-linux
and thereby got a GMP in GHC which uses PII/PIII specific
insns which don't exist on earlier (Pentium-I class)
s/comprension/comprehension/ in the last line of this error message
Couldn't match `[Char]' against `Char'
Expected type: [[Char]]
Inferred type: FilePath
in a `list comprension' pattern binding: f
Here's the offending line:
grep comprension
| Compiling Main ( Main.hs, interpreted )
| ghc-5.00: panic! (the `impossible' happened, GHC version 5.00):
|bytecode generator can't handle unboxed tuples
|
| The interpreter does not support foreign declarations yet.
| You can only use them with the batch compiler.
Simon Marlow writes:
Hi William,
It's not your day, is it? :) You seem to have tripped over just about
all the nasty bugs in 5.00.
Think so, but Ralf Hinze helped me out by sending me RPMs he's made
for SuSE 7.1, from Manuel's SRPM (whether hacked I don't know---I
didn't try Manuel's
* William Chesters [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2001-05-09T20:58+0200]:
William Chesters writes:
However the toy exe I build terminates with an Illegal
instruction signal (whether or not I use -via-C), and the same quite
quickly happens to ghci if I play around. If I copy the toy exe onto
William Chesters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote,
Simon Marlow writes:
Hi William,
It's not your day, is it? :) You seem to have tripped over just about
all the nasty bugs in 5.00.
Think so, but Ralf Hinze helped me out by sending me RPMs he's made
for SuSE 7.1, from Manuel's SRPM
Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote,
ANNOUNCING Happy 1.10 - The LALR(1) Parser Generator for Haskell
An RPM package for x86 RedHat Linux[1] is now available at
ftp://ftp.cse.unsw.edu.au/pub/users/chak/jibunmaki/i386/happy-1.10-2.i386.rpm
The matching source RPM is at
Combining two threads...
Like macros and preprocessors, Happy generates code.
I assume the justification for this is that hand-coding a parser in
Haskell is presumed to be too difficult or that it is too hard to get the
right level of abstraction (and therefore a macro-like facility is
S. Alexander Jacobson writes:
I am not a parsing expert, but given the recent discussion on
macros, I
have to ask: why use happy rather than monadic parsing?
Monadic parsing
allows you to avoid a whole additional language/compilation
step and work
in Hugs (where you don't have a
Just out of curiosity, has anyone done any work at benchmarking the
various parsers? I use Parsec pretty exclusivly since it comes with ghc
and is pretty straightforward and lightweight to use. I am wondering
what I am giving up in terms of speed by going that route, rather than
Happy or the
MonadReader, MonadWriter and MonadState classes have fundeps from the
monad type to the environment / output / state type (I added them
a few months ago).
MonadError doesn't. I thought that it's desirable to make a class with
more than one exception type, such that for example each catchError
G'day all.
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 09:24:36PM +, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
BTW, another question: should MonadPlus instead of just Monad be
a superclass of MonadError? It has a natural definition in terms
of catchError.
I can see how mplus has a natural definition (I can think of
I'am confused about the funlhs production, in Report on the programming
Language Haskell 98 of the 1st February 1999.
In the report one of the funlhs-productions is (see page 127):
funlhs - var apat {apat}
That is a var followed by one to many apat. But you can have functions
like
I'am confused about the funlhs production, in Report on the programming
Language Haskell 98 of the 1st February 1999.
In the report one of the funlhs-productions is (see page 127):
funlhs - var apat {apat}
That is a var followed by one to many apat. But you can have functions
i ve developped a datatype in a module P, and another module will use it, and most
probably a few others, and its quite central to the apps Im building.
what is the best organisation ?
-import module P everywhere
- isolate this datatype in a module, which would be imported everywhere ?(very
Combining two threads...
Like macros and preprocessors, Happy generates code.
I assume the justification for this is that hand-coding a parser in
Haskell is presumed to be too difficult or that it is too hard to get the
right level of abstraction (and therefore a macro-like facility is
S. Alexander Jacobson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am not a parsing expert, but given the recent discussion on macros, I
have to ask: why use happy rather than monadic parsing? Monadic parsing
allows you to avoid a whole additional language/compilation step and work
in Hugs (where you don't
S. Alexander Jacobson writes:
I am not a parsing expert, but given the recent discussion on
macros, I
have to ask: why use happy rather than monadic parsing?
Monadic parsing
allows you to avoid a whole additional language/compilation
step and work
in Hugs (where you don't have a
Would allowing this make sense?
class C a b | a - b
class C a b = S a
I want to simulate a particular class synonym (with four superclasses
instead of one C here) where the type 'b' is uninteresting for its users.
Currently I have to write
class C a b | a - b
class C a b = S a b
Just out of curiosity, has anyone done any work at benchmarking the
various parsers? I use Parsec pretty exclusivly since it comes with ghc
and is pretty straightforward and lightweight to use. I am wondering
what I am giving up in terms of speed by going that route, rather than
Happy or the
Hi Jeff,
| Without delving too deeply into your example, it looks like
| you've bumped into a known bug in Hugs implementation of
| functional dependencies. You should try GHCI if you can - it
| doesn't suffer from this bug.
Are there any plans to fix the bug in Hugs? (And is there
C T McBride wrote:
Hi
This is a long message, containing a program which makes heavy use of
type classes with functional dependencies, and a query about how the
typechecker treats them. It might be a bit of an effort, but I'd be
grateful for any comment and advice more experienced
27 matches
Mail list logo
