On 15/07/2010 00:26, John Meacham wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 10:35:50AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=773044
Ah, this paper looks very interesting, I was wondering if you had
experimented with prefetching just ahead of the allocation pointer.
Looks
On 14/07/2010 03:36, John Meacham wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:24:00AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
Well, a main useful case is that I can do -phaskell98 and -phaskell2010
at the same time. So I can make the default jhc behavior be the union of
the two languages easily.
That works in GHC
On 12/07/2010 22:12, John Meacham wrote:
Yeah, I didn't realize how important the allocator was until I started
benchmarking, spending time cutting the cost of marking garbage in
half didn't help nearly as much as shaving a few cycles off the
allocator. The fast pass of the allocator is
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 10:35:50AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
Yeah, I didn't realize how important the allocator was until I started
benchmarking, spending time cutting the cost of marking garbage in
half didn't help nearly as much as shaving a few cycles off the
allocator. The fast pass of
On 12/07/2010 18:29, Felipe Lessa wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 9:50 AM, Simon Marlowmarlo...@gmail.com wrote:
And hopefully things will improve over time, as fewer packages will need to
depend on base. We could also start pulling out APIs that are currently in
base into separate packages,
On 12/07/2010 22:12, John Meacham wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 01:50:01PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
Right. I like the idea of packages being able to declare re-exported
modules, indeed I considered doing this in GHC (when we needed base3)
but decided not to mainly because we would still
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:24:00AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
Well, a main useful case is that I can do -phaskell98 and -phaskell2010
at the same time. So I can make the default jhc behavior be the union of
the two languages easily.
That works in GHC too: the modules of those two packages
On 08/07/2010 21:34, John Meacham wrote:
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 09:48:20PM +0300, Roman Cheplyaka wrote:
Greetings! Now, can different compiler/interpreter authors make
statements about support of this standard in their compilers please?
Jhc supports all the language features of haskell 2010
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 10:07:28AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
The story we tentatively plan to provide in GHC 6.14.1 is a haskell2010
package that provides exactly the API specified by the report (by
definition, since the source was used to generate the report :-). The
modules of
On 12/07/2010 12:43, John Meacham wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 10:07:28AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
The story we tentatively plan to provide in GHC 6.14.1 is a haskell2010
package that provides exactly the API specified by the report (by
definition, since the source was used to generate the
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 9:50 AM, Simon Marlow marlo...@gmail.com wrote:
And hopefully things will improve over time, as fewer packages will need to
depend on base. We could also start pulling out APIs that are currently in
base into separate packages, without actually pulling out the code -
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 01:50:01PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
Right. I like the idea of packages being able to declare re-exported
modules, indeed I considered doing this in GHC (when we needed base3)
but decided not to mainly because we would still need PackageImports,
and once you
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 09:48:20PM +0300, Roman Cheplyaka wrote:
Greetings! Now, can different compiler/interpreter authors make
statements about support of this standard in their compilers please?
Jhc supports all the language features of haskell 2010 except pattern
guards. (ironic as I am a
* Simon Marlow marlo...@gmail.com [2010-07-06 13:00:36+0100]
The Haskell 2010 report is done! I've uploaded it to
www.haskell.org, and linked it from the main Haskell wiki:
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Language_and_library_specification
online HTML version:
14 matches
Mail list logo
