Bugs item #635605, was opened at 2002-11-08 17:46
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=108032aid=635605group_id=8032
Category: Compiler
Group: None
Status: Closed
Resolution: Fixed
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Assigned to:
Bugs item #635594, was opened at 2002-11-08 17:28
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=108032aid=635594group_id=8032
Category: Compiler
Group: None
Status: Closed
Resolution: Accepted
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Assigned to:
| I propose adding something like
|
| forkNativeThread :: IO () - IO ()
I haven't talked to Simon about this, but it sounds possible. Three
thoughts.
First, before doing anything like this I'd like to ask you or someone
else, or a group, to write a clear exposition of what the problem is and
I have a silly question about IORefs and MVars.
When do we have to use MVars if a var is accessed by multiple
threads.
In fact, I wonder why IORefs updates aren't safe :
it seems that preemptive scheduling takes place during memory
allocation
and I can't see where there could be an
I'm still unconvinced that the current optional
RTS support for mixed green/native threads is the right way
to go. It looks to
me like a workaround for poor OS support for really
lightweight threads.
It is a workaround for the lack of truly lightweight threads at the OS
level. But I
These bugs are now fixed in the HEAD. I hope the fixes will make it
into 5.04.2 as well.
Thanks for identifying them. It was all horribly bogus before.
Simon
| -Original Message-
| From: Ashley Yakeley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
| Sent: 13 November 2002 13:46
| To: Simon Peyton-Jones
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 11:55:27AM -, Simon Marlow wrote:
What exactly are you trying to use -ffunction-sections for? I'm pretty
sure it won't work as things stand currently, unless you can guarantee
to be able to find a text/data boundary symbol for the garbage collector
(currently it
Now fixed in the HEAD, and will be in 5.04.2
Thanks for pointing it out.
Simon
Thanks :)
J.A.
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 11:55:27AM -, Simon Marlow wrote:
What exactly are you trying to use -ffunction-sections for?
I'm pretty
sure it won't work as things stand currently, unless you
can guarantee
to be able to find a text/data boundary symbol for the
garbage collector
I want to write something like
type State a = IORef a
newState :: a - State a
newState v = unsafePerformIO (newIORef v)
But I don't want the compileer to inline this nor to inline any
application of this.
{#NOINLINE newState#}
But how can I stop this function to be inlined when applied for
Hal Daume III wrote:
You can't. [...]
Well, you can, but only for CAFs. This idiom/hack is used
quite happily throughout GHC, HOpenGL, H/Direct, ...
Slightly modified stuff from GHC's sources:
-- global variables in Haskell :-)
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 10:36:05AM -0800, Hal Daume III wrote:
You can't. CSE (common subexpression elimination) will replace any
occurances of 'newState 0' in a function body with the same value.
In short: don't use upIO :)
Sorry, cannot resist to pour a little salt onto the wound :)
Hi,
I was wondering whether other people made similiar observations.
Functional dependencies seem to be expressiveness enough to encode
some of the kinding rules required for Constructor Classes.
Take a look at the Haskell code below
(runs under hugs -98 or ghci
Hi,
yet again FD's! In my previous example I employed FD's to improve
constraints. However, there are cases where FD's seem to be overly
restrictive. Take a look at the Haskell code below. Have others
made similar experiences?
Martin
-- FDs are sometimes overly restrictive
module Insert
Please apologize if you receive multiple copies of this message.
**
*** LDTA 2003: ACM SIGPLAN Workshop ***
*** APRIL, 6, 2003 ***
*** WARSAW,
Martin Sulzmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
I was wondering whether other people made similiar observations.
Functional dependencies seem to be expressiveness enough to encode
some of the kinding rules required for Constructor Classes.
read this page:
Yoann Padioleau writes:
nevertheless i found constructor class more elegant for many problems.
Your solution is less elegant that the one using constructor classes.
Yes, the current presentation of constructor classes might be easier
to comprehend.
I found too that type error messages
Hi Martin,
| The issue I want to raise is whether constructor classes are
| redundant in the presence of FDs
No, they are not comparable.
Let fds = functional dependencies
ccs = constructor classes
Example of something you can do with ccs but not fds:
data Fix f = In (f (Fix f))
Just a silly thing that's been nagging me. a very common way (at least
in the base libraries) of formatting function types seems to be this:
hPutBuf :: Handle -- handle to write to
- Ptr a-- address of buffer
- Int
Now fixed in the HEAD, and will be in 5.04.2
Thanks for pointing it out.
Simon
| -Original Message-
| From: Jorge Adriano [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
| Sent: 14 November 2002 21:10
| To: Iavor S. Diatchki
| Cc: Haskell Cafe; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Subject: Bug? [was: Implicit params]
|
|
Now fixed in the HEAD, and will be in 5.04.2
Thanks for pointing it out.
Simon
Thanks :)
J.A.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
21 matches
Mail list logo
