#775: ctime_r call in Solaris 10 SPARC
--+-
Reporter: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Owner:
Type: bug | Status: new
Priority: normal | Milestone:
Hi Florian,
it seems, that you fall over the same problems I had under solaris.
GHC-6.4.2 does not work under solaris, currently.
I've build a binary distribution (without -threaded) that seems to work
at least as good as the ghc-6.4.1 version did.
You may try out:
Christian Maeder wrote:
I'm currently running the ghc-regression test (with stage1/ghc-inplace),
but that does not look good (although it does not hang)
here is the frustrating summary:
OVERALL SUMMARY for test run started at Mon May 22 18:30:30 CEST 2006
1365 total tests, which gave rise
Hello,
OK, if GHCi's linker can't cope with the extra symbols, then perhaps
we can get rid of them.
Following the advice here:
http://lists.apple.com/archives/scitech/2005/Sep/msg00019.html
I built my GHCi .o file like so:
GHCI_LD_OPTS += -L/usr/lib/ -lSystemStubs
...
$(LD)
I think many would be grateful if a podcast were made of this event
such that those who missed it can still watch the presentations.
+1. A podcast would be perfect, posting minutes would be next in line.
If the Hackathon goes ahead, recording a video podcast of the event
should be
Dear all,
I think the hackathon sounds like a very interesting idea, however
unfortunately I will not be able to attend, and I have heard that other
people from #haskell will not be able to attend either. I think many
would be grateful if a podcast were made of this event such that those
who
On 23/05/06, Christophe Poucet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the hackathon sounds like a very interesting idea, however
unfortunately I will not be able to attend, and I have heard that other
people from #haskell will not be able to attend either. I think many
would be grateful if a podcast
I think many would be grateful if a podcast were made of this event
such that those who missed it can still watch the presentations.
+1. A podcast would be perfect, posting minutes would be next in line.
If the Hackathon goes ahead, recording a video podcast of the event
should be
Dear all,
Just one last reminder that the Scheme and Functional programming
workshop's deadline is fast approaching. Only a little more than two
weeks to go.
Do submit!
Best,
Robby
The purpose of the workshop is to discuss
Call for Participation --- FLoC'06
The 2006 Federated Logic Conference
Seattle, Washington, USA
August 10 -- August 22, 2006
http://www.easychair.org/FLoC-06/
We are pleased to announce
Christophe Poucet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Class Aliases. I have looked at the ticket and right now it's marked
as a low priority with low probability of entering the standard.
I think class aliases might be a nice idea too. But we don't have any
concrete experience with implementations that
Hello Brian,
Tuesday, May 23, 2006, 4:05:45 AM, you wrote:
Thanks for the solutions. The GHC scoped typed variables seem to be the best
solution since they would seem to be the only way to implement something
where the type only occurs in the result eg (if the actual fonts were to be
added
Hello ALL,
I am very new to Haskell and my question might appear very basic sorry about
it in advance.
I have a C++ application and I would like to be able to launch Haskell
interpreter (lets say GHC) supplying the Haskell code (in a file ) to be
interpreted from it. The Haskell program
On Tuesday 23 May 2006 02:00, Brian Hulley wrote:
I wonder if Haskell' will automatically make type variables scope
over the function body (without an explicit forall)? Is there any
reason why they shouldn't always do so?
One I can think of is that the type signature for a function may be at
Brian Hulley wrote:
Therefore I humbly submit a call for authors of books/tutorials on IO to
come clean and admit the fact that IO completely changes the language
from being purely functional into a functional + process calculus
language :-)
I agree, but for the completely changes part: the
Hi Claus --
I think that you're asking for a semantics of the entire OS, i.e. the
entire outside world, and for that I agree that something other than
equational reasoning is needed to reason about it. However, I would
argue that that is outside the mandate of a book on Haskell. But maybe
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
malloc :: Storable a = IO (Ptr a)
malloc = doMalloc undefined
where
doMalloc :: Storable b = b - IO (Ptr b)
doMalloc dummy = mallocBytes (sizeOf dummy)
Is there any reason to not code this as
malloc :: Storable a = IO (Ptr a)
malloc = mallocBytes $
On May 23, 2006, at 9:50 AM, Paul Hudak wrote:
Hi Claus --
I think that you're asking for a semantics of the entire OS, i.e.
the entire outside world, and for that I agree that something other
than equational reasoning is needed to reason about it. However, I
would argue that that is
Jacques Carette wrote:
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
malloc :: Storable a = IO (Ptr a)
malloc = doMalloc undefined
where
doMalloc :: Storable b = b - IO (Ptr b)
doMalloc dummy = mallocBytes (sizeOf dummy)
Is there any reason to not code this as
malloc :: Storable a = IO
Vladimir == Vladimir Portnykh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Vladimir Hello ALL, I am very new to Haskell and my question might
Vladimir appear very basic sorry about it in advance. I have a C++
Vladimir application and I would like to be able to launch Haskell
Vladimir interpreter (lets say GHC)
Jacques Carette wrote:
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
malloc :: Storable a = IO (Ptr a)
malloc = doMalloc undefined
where
doMalloc :: Storable b = b - IO (Ptr b)
doMalloc dummy = mallocBytes (sizeOf dummy)
Is there any reason to not code this as
malloc :: Storable a = IO (Ptr a)
Bertram Felgenhauer wrote:
Jacques Carette wrote:
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
malloc :: Storable a = IO (Ptr a)
malloc = doMalloc undefined
where
doMalloc :: Storable b = b - IO (Ptr b)
doMalloc dummy = mallocBytes (sizeOf dummy)
Is there any reason to not code this as
Hello Brian,
Tuesday, May 23, 2006, 7:10:23 PM, you wrote:
Yes. The supreme clevernesss of Bulat's trick is that doMalloc unifies the
my main trick is that i read sources of std libs :)
--
Best regards,
Bulatmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jacques Carette wrote:
I guess I prefer a type annotation over a dummy function that is
there just to force the type checker to believe me. If one has to
force the type checker, may as well do it with a type, not code!
I agree totally.
Also, I think there is a more general issue regarding the
On May 23, 2006, at 11:13 AM, Jacques Carette wrote:
Bertram Felgenhauer wrote:
Jacques Carette wrote:
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
malloc :: Storable a = IO (Ptr a)
malloc = doMalloc undefined
where
doMalloc :: Storable b = b - IO (Ptr b)
doMalloc dummy = mallocBytes (sizeOf dummy)
Jacques Carette wrote:
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
malloc :: Storable a = IO (Ptr a)
malloc = doMalloc undefined
where
doMalloc :: Storable b = b - IO (Ptr b)
doMalloc dummy = mallocBytes (sizeOf dummy)
Is there any reason to not code this as
malloc :: Storable a = IO
Hello Jacques,
Tuesday, May 23, 2006, 7:13:33 PM, you wrote:
malloc :: Storable a = IO (Ptr a)
malloc = doMalloc undefined
where
doMalloc :: Storable b = b - IO (Ptr b)
doMalloc dummy = mallocBytes (sizeOf dummy)
Is there any reason to not code this as
malloc :: Storable a = IO (Ptr
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 10:31:17AM +0100, Vladimir Portnykh wrote:
Hello ALL,
I am very new to Haskell and my question might appear very basic sorry
about it in advance.
I have a C++ application and I would like to be able to launch Haskell
interpreter (lets say GHC) supplying the Haskell
On 5/23/06, Marc Weber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 10:31:17AM +0100, Vladimir Portnykh wrote:
Hello ALL,
I am very new to Haskell and my question might appear very basic sorry
about it in advance.
I have a C++ application and I would like to be able to launch Haskell
Robert Dockins wrote:
On May 23, 2006, at 9:50 AM, Paul Hudak wrote:
If you disagree, then please tell me which features in Haskell (a
particular I/O command, perhaps?) cannot be modelled as a function.
IO.hGetContents? I suspect the result of using hGetContents on a file
you have open
Hi Paul,
I think that you're asking for a semantics of the entire OS, i.e. the
entire outside world, and for that I agree that something other than
equational reasoning is needed to reason about it.
I was about to reply no, only of the interface between Haskell and the OS,
but perhaps that
Benjamin Franksen wrote:
On Tuesday 23 May 2006 02:00, Brian Hulley wrote:
I wonder if Haskell' will automatically make type variables scope
over the function body (without an explicit forall)? Is there any
reason why they shouldn't always do so?
One I can think of is that the type signature
Dear all,
I recently stumbled upon something that I think should be added to the
GHC wishlist. Not knowing where to put it, I will put it here. As there
is deriving(Show) for most basic data types, wouldn't it be possible to
have something similar but then deriving(Pretty). When printing ASTs
Sorry, meant to reply all:
---
This tool (DrIFT) can derive these instances for you, if you care to
make rules for it, for Pretty:
http://repetae.net/john/computer/haskell/DrIFT/
Jared.
--
http://www.updike.org/~jared/
reverse )-:
Hello Chris,
It seems that your reply only replied to me and not to the haskell-cafe
list. I hope you do not mind that I reply to the list. Anyways,
regarding how the AST is pretty printed. I was not thinking of any
highlevel pretty printing of an AST (at least not derived
automatically).
35 matches
Mail list logo
