ghc for win32 isn't cool.
We're trying to make it cooler. If you have any specific gripes, we'd be
happy to hear them (mostly they're things we know about, but we like to have
user input to know what to concentrate on).
it remind me java in gcc 3.0.
How so?
is there any ghc project as gcc
This is interesting, but not what I want. I want something to wait on
a real, Posix, child, _process_!! Not a GHC thread.
Ah. Oops :)
There's one other way that Marcin didn't mention: wait for SIGCHLD,
which can be done without blocking the whole process. Unfortunately
there's no easy
Hehe ...i figured it out :) Essentially followed the thread of logic
outlined in the 'fix' for the 'remainder' problem by Lars. Thanks!
btw, would it be correct to say that 'fixIO' is used to create unbounded
loops without using run-time recursion? Or that its a way of telling the
compiler not
Hi,
I was investigating the prelude the other day. I was bewildered with the
highly complicated expressions, and interesting syntax.
My question is : are there any tweaks in the prelude? I mean : are there
any language constructs which have some sort of special treatment? Which
ones are hard
I apologize if this question has already been asked, but I couldn't find a
searchable version of the mail archive.
Doug Bagley's computer language shootout, http://www.bagley.org/~doug/shootout/,
a collection of mini-benchmarks in several languages, doesn't paint a very
flattering picture of
[Miles Egan [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
I apologize if this question has already been asked, but I couldn't find a
searchable version of the mail archive.
Doug Bagley's computer language shootout, http://www.bagley.org/~doug/shootout/,
a collection of mini-benchmarks in several languages, doesn't
GHC ranks quite poorly currently. (I think there's an AWK implementation
that's ahead of it, nevermind Ruby or Python). There are still a couple of
benchmarks that haven't been implemented yet for Haskell, and a couple more
that don't make sense for a non-OO language. I spent a little while
On Fri, Jul 27, 2001 at 11:18:49AM -0500, matt hellige wrote:
[Miles Egan [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
I apologize if this question has already been asked, but I couldn't find a
searchable version of the mail archive.
Doug Bagley's computer language shootout,
On Fri, Jul 27, 2001 at 10:11:20AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have to say (and this also relates to the newbie question thread) that I
don't understand why GHC fares so poorly, and I guess I find it a little
frustrating.
I think it's important to keep these benchmarks in perspective,
[Miles Egan [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Overall speed ratings on the scorecard page place GHC below AWK and slightly
ahead of TCL. GHC does perform well on a few of the benchmarks but performs
surprisingly poorly on many others, which makes me think that there's a lot of
room for improvement.
Miles Egan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
[shootout]
Before it starts to explode, can we move
this thread to the Haskell Cafe?
Regards,
Marc
--
Marc van Dongen, CS Dept | phone: +353 21 4903578
University College Cork, NUIC | Fax:+353 21 4903113
Western Road, Cork, Ireland |
-Original Message-
From: Miles Egan [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Fri, Jul 27, 2001 at 10:11:20AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have to say (and this also relates to the newbie question thread) that
I
don't understand why GHC fares so poorly, and I guess I find it a little
On Fri, Jul 27, 2001 at 10:34:40AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Bryn Keller]
While this is absolutely true, and well worth remembering, GHC's
performance is in some cases reasonably competitive, but in others is many
times slower than Ocaml. For instance:
Times are
On Fri, Jul 27, 2001 at 06:28:26PM +0100, Marc van Dongen wrote:
Miles Egan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
[shootout]
Before it starts to explode, can we move
this thread to the Haskell Cafe?
Happily. I apologize if this isn't the right list. It wasn't quite clear to me
which list was
Important confession since Fergus is in the discussion: I've not actually
read any of the C or C++ standards; I've got an impression of what they
say from various textbooks and the gcc mailing lists.
On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Fergus Henderson wrote:
But there are so *many* such stupidities.
If
[Fergus Henderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Could you be more specific about exactly which kinds of optimizations
you are referring to here?
If/when multiple-CPU machines become common, so that automatic
parallelization is a serious issue, then it will be much more important.
But currently the
16 matches
Mail list logo
