On 23 July 2005 22:52, Duncan Coutts wrote:
On Sat, 2005-07-23 at 22:49 +0200, Jan Scott wrote:
Hi,
Has anyone ever tried to build Ghc with Microsofts c compiler (msvc)
?
GHC relies quite heavily on gcc. GHC's C code backend uses a number of
GNU C extensions I believe.
I think it
On 25 July 2005 14:44, Einar Karttunen wrote:
What is the correct way to express liveness dependencies for
ForeignPtrs? I am wrapping a C library and need a way to keep
ForeignPtrs alive until the finalizer for an another ForeignPtr
has been executed.
Basically I have two types, ForeignPtr
On 25 July 2005 22:41, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
On 7/25/05, Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 23 July 2005 03:38, Duncan Coutts wrote:
The problem then as John noted is that the main loop of these
toolkits block and so the other Haskell threads would not get a
chance to schedule. So
Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You might be able to find more information on this in the mailing list
archives. It's true that touchForeignPtr isn't enough to enforce an
ordering on the running of finalizers, but it *can* be used to express a
liveness relationship between one
On 26 July 2005 11:26, Einar Karttunen wrote:
Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You might be able to find more information on this in the mailing
list archives. It's true that touchForeignPtr isn't enough to
enforce an ordering on the running of finalizers, but it *can* be
used to
On 7/26/05, Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 25 July 2005 22:41, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
On 7/25/05, Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 23 July 2005 03:38, Duncan Coutts wrote:
The problem then as John noted is that the main loop of these
toolkits block and so the other
On 26 July 2005 11:32, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
On 7/26/05, Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 25 July 2005 22:41, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
Well how about not touching the bound threads design at all, but
modifying the lightweigh threads design to also include forkIOHere
(or something)
On 26 July 2005 14:15, Einar Karttunen wrote:
Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now the association becomes
associate (Foo _ ref) bar =
atomicModifyIORef ref (\lst - (touchForeignPtr bar : lst, ()))
Isn't that equivalent to using addForeignPtrFinalizer? I don't think
this fixes
Hi all,
I'm [trying to] develop a system that uses plug-ins to implement a
black-box ADT, that is a data-type and a few typeclass instances
for it. I want my system (a theorem prover) to be able to work with
any of these plug-ins (which define a logic and operations on its
formulae) but
Hello everybody,
Now I am writing a module to handles messages of a system. The
messages are stored in a file. The content of each line of the file
likes this:
1001 001 Error message 1
1001 002 Error message 2
1002
Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, unfortunately not. You have foo's finalizer which refers to bar via
a touchForeignPtr. If both foo and bar are unreachable (references from
finalizers don't count), then both foo and bar's finalizers will be
started together, and may run in any
Here's how I wrote it:
- beginning of file
import IO
-- turn a line of the text file into a pair consisting of
-- the message triple and the message string
-- slight bug: will contract multiple spaces in the message string
-- This could be rewritten to avoid this problem, but couldn't make
12 matches
Mail list logo
