Last weekend a new version of the haskell platform has been released. I was
expecting that also for windows the ghc 6.12 would be in it. However, when I
follow the link:
http://hackage.haskell.org/platform/windows.html
I still get the 'old' version (2009.2.0.2) which contains ghc 6.10
Is this
Han Joosten han.joos...@atosorigin.com writes:
Last weekend a new version of the haskell platform has been released. I was
expecting that also for windows the ghc 6.12 would be in it. However, when I
follow the link:
http://hackage.haskell.org/platform/windows.html
I still get the 'old'
It's a known issue, and it's mine. If you (naively) just expect to
link on Snow Leopard without passing any special backwards-
compatibility flags, and have things work on Leopard, well, Apple
has news for you.
gcc -mmacox-version-min=10.5.8 ?
Regards,
Malcolm
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Edward Kmett ekm...@gmail.com wrote:
-- as long as you're ignoring 'seq'
terminateSeq :: a - Unit
terminateSeq a = a `seq` unit
Er ignore that language about seq. a `seq` unit is either another bottom or
undefined, so there remains one canonical morphism
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Edward Kmett ekm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Edward Kmett ekm...@gmail.com wrote:
-- as long as you're ignoring 'seq'
terminateSeq :: a - Unit
terminateSeq a = a `seq` unit
Er ignore that language about seq. a `seq` unit is
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Gregory Collins
g...@gregorycollins.net wrote:
Matthew Brecknell matt...@brecknell.net writes:
And is confirmed by a simple test (with GHC 6.10.4 on Linux):
import Prelude hiding(catch)
import Control.Concurrent
import Control.Exception
main = do
chan -
On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 13:29 +, Duncan Coutts wrote:
On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 02:11 +, Maciej Piechotka wrote:
Hello,
I have written patch (attached) which introduce new API for zlib -
personally I wrote it to have easy implementation of
compression/decompression in iteratee
On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 17:06 +, Duncan Coutts wrote:
On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 16:50 +, Maciej Piechotka wrote:
On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 13:29 +, Duncan Coutts wrote:
On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 02:11 +, Maciej Piechotka wrote:
Hello,
I have written patch (attached) which
Hello,
During a talk with a friend I came up with two programs, one written in
C and another in haskell.
Haskell
main :: IO ()
main = print $ rangeI 0 0
rangeK :: Int - Int - Int - Int - Int
rangeK i j k acc
| k 1000 =
if i *
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Rafael Cunha de Almeida
almeida...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
During a talk with a friend I came up with two programs, one written in
C and another in haskell.
Haskell
main :: IO ()
main = print $ rangeI 0 0
rangeK :: Int - Int - Int
Here are jhc's timings for the same programs on my machine. gcc and ghc
both used -O3 and jhc had its full standard optimizations turned on.
jhc:
./hs.out 5.12s user 0.07s system 96% cpu 5.380 total
gcc:
./a.out 5.58s user 0.00s system 97% cpu 5.710 total
ghc:
./try 31.11s user 0.00s system
On 03/25/10 12:36, Simon Marlow wrote:
I'd also be amenable to having block/unblock count nesting levels
instead, I don't think it would be too hard to implement and it wouldn't
require any changes at the library level.
Wasn't there a reason that it didn't nest?
I think it was that operations
Hi,
I've got an idea for a Summer of Code project and I'd really appreciate some
feedback on it. If people generally find it interesting, I'll go into more
detail.
GSoC: Haskell JVM bytecode library
==
What
I'm thinking of writing a library for
This is certainly something I could use.
John
--
John Meacham - ⑆repetae.net⑆john⑈ - http://notanumber.net/
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Hi
For some time I have been thinking about an idea, which could limit
Haskell's memory footprint. I don't know if the idea is crazy or clever,
but I would love to hear peoples thoughts about it. The short story is,
I propose that the garbage collector should not just reclaim unused
memory, it
FWIW, downloading the haskell-platform-2010.1.0.0 tarball and building
it on my 10.5.8 system (with ghc 6.12.1 installed from the dmg) worked
just fine. Didn't take too long either. Unfortunately I don't see any
telltale linker options in the build logs.
Warren
On Mar 26, 2010, at 7:38
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 08:01:57PM +, Alexandru Scvortov wrote:
I'm thinking of writing a library for analyzing/generating/manipulating JVM
bytecode. To be clear, this library would allow one to load and work with
JVM
classfiles; it wouldn't be a compiler, interpretor or a GHC backend.
On Mar 26, 2010, at 16:28 , Mads Lindstrøm wrote:
For some time I have been thinking about an idea, which could limit
Haskell's memory footprint. I don't know if the idea is crazy or
clever,
This is called pointer tagging. The original STG design avoided it
because of the perceived
On Mar 26, 2010, at 16:29 , Warren Harris wrote:
FWIW, downloading the haskell-platform-2010.1.0.0 tarball and
building it on my 10.5.8 system (with ghc 6.12.1 installed from the
dmg) worked just fine. Didn't take too long either. Unfortunately I
don't see any telltale linker options in the
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH
allb...@ece.cmu.edu wrote:
On Mar 26, 2010, at 16:28 , Mads Lindstrøm wrote:
For some time I have been thinking about an idea, which could limit
Haskell's memory footprint. I don't know if the idea is crazy or clever,
This is
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 11:21 PM, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH
allb...@ece.cmu.edu wrote:
On Mar 26, 2010, at 16:28 , Mads Lindstrøm wrote:
For some time I have been thinking about an idea, which could limit
Haskell's memory footprint. I don't know if the idea is crazy or clever,
This is called
We've used this library to generate a prototype JVM backend for UHC about a
year ago, and it Just Worked. That was probably on 6.10 or 6.8.
-chris
On 26 mrt 2010, at 21:33, Brian Alliet wrote:
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 08:01:57PM +, Alexandru Scvortov wrote:
I'm thinking of writing a
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 8:28 PM, Mads Lindstrøm mads_lindstr...@yahoo.dkwrote:
Hi
For some time I have been thinking about an idea, which could limit
Haskell's memory footprint. I don't know if the idea is crazy or clever,
but I would love to hear peoples thoughts about it. The short story
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Rafael Cunha de Almeida
almeida...@gmail.com wrote:
During a talk with a friend I came up with two programs, one written in
C and another in haskell.
Your Haskell code builds a huge thunked accumulator value, so of course it's
slow (put bang patterns on all
How stable is it?
Was it easy to use?
Did it have enough documentation?
Do you think it could use a rewrite? If so, what should be done differently?
Could it be extended into something more?
(sorry for the barrage of questions, but you're the one person I've seen so
far, apart from the
On 26 mrt 2010, at 22:37, Alexandru Scvortov wrote:
How stable is it?
I don't know. I remember that we didn't have to change anything and that
everything just worked.
Was it easy to use?
Actually yes, because:
Did it have enough documentation?
I think we used the Java documentation. The
Hi
On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 21:24 +, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH
allb...@ece.cmu.edu wrote:
On Mar 26, 2010, at 16:28 , Mads Lindstrøm wrote:
For some time I have been thinking about an idea,
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Bryan O'Sullivan b...@serpentine.comwrote:
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Rafael Cunha de Almeida
almeida...@gmail.com wrote:
During a talk with a friend I came up with two programs, one written in
C and another in haskell.
Your Haskell code builds a
Hi
On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 21:33 +, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
Reorganizing data on the fly sounds like it may be a pretty sensible
idea now that cache misses are so bad (in comparison). The fact that
Haskell data is generally immutable helps too.
However, I think your scheme sounds a bit
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Mads Lindstrøm
mads_lindstr...@yahoo.dkwrote:
Hi
On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 21:33 +, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
Reorganizing data on the fly sounds like it may be a pretty sensible
idea now that cache misses are so bad (in comparison). The fact that
In 6.12.1 under archlinux
let f x y z = x + y + z
:t f
f :: (Num a) = a - a - a - a
:t (=) . f
(=) . f :: (Num a) = a - ((a - a) - a - b) - a - b
((=) . f) 1 (\f x - f x) 2
5
In 6.10.4_1 under freebsd
let f x y z = x + y + z
*Money :t f
f :: (Num a) = a - a - a - a
:t (=) . f
(=) . f ::
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 8:20 PM, zaxis z_a...@163.com wrote:
In 6.12.1 under archlinux
let f x y z = x + y + z
:t f
f :: (Num a) = a - a - a - a
:t (=) . f
(=) . f :: (Num a) = a - ((a - a) - a - b) - a - b
((=) . f) 1 (\f x - f x) 2
5
In 6.10.4_1 under freebsd
let f x y z = x + y + z
Did you import the module includes the instance of Monad ((-) e)
somewhere in your code loaded in ghci?
I tried this on a fresh ghci 6.12, but I got No instance error.
-nwn
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 9:20 AM, zaxis z_a...@163.com wrote:
In 6.12.1 under archlinux
let f x y z = x + y + z
:t f
f
zaxis z_a...@163.com writes:
In 6.10.4_1 under freebsd
let f x y z = x + y + z
*Money :t f
f :: (Num a) = a - a - a - a
:t (=) . f
(=) . f :: (Monad ((-) a), Num a) = a - ((a - a) - a - b) - a - b
((=) . f) 1 (\f x - f x) 2
interactive:1:1:
No instance for (Monad ((-) a))
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 8:59 PM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com wrote:
zaxis z_a...@163.com writes:
In 6.10.4_1 under freebsd
let f x y z = x + y + z
*Money :t f
f :: (Num a) = a - a - a - a
:t (=) . f
(=) . f :: (Monad ((-) a), Num a) = a - ((a - a) - a - b) - a - b
David Menendez d...@zednenem.com writes:
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 8:59 PM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com wrote:
Some definitions and exports got changed, so in 6.12 the (- a) Monad
instance is exported whereas in 6.10 it isn't.
What? From where?
I thought the whole reason
I'd guess that the LLVM backend could generate code that is at least
as fast as gcc. It would be nice if you could test it.
--
Felipe.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
fac n = let { f = foldr (*) 1 [1..n] } in f
Why do you bother with the interior definition of f in there?
fac = product . enumFromTo 1
let fac = do is_zero - (==0); if is_zero then return 1 else liftM2
(*) id (fac . pred)
-nwn
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com wrote:
David Menendez d...@zednenem.com writes:
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 8:59 PM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com wrote:
Some definitions and exports got changed, so in 6.12 the (- a) Monad
On 27 March 2010 04:46, Rafael Cunha de Almeida almeida...@gmail.com wrote:
During a talk with a friend I came up with two programs, one written in
C and another in haskell.
snip
The Haskell version:
real 0m45.335s
user 0m45.275s
sys 0m0.004s
against the C version:
real
Hi,
I'm trying to solve the N-queens problem, but with a catch: I want to
generate solutions in a random order.
I know how to solve the N-queens problem; my solver (below) generates all
possible solutions. What I am trying to do is generate solutions in a
random order by somehow randomizing the
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 6:16 PM, Felipe Lessa felipe.le...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd guess that the LLVM backend could generate code that is at least
as fast as gcc. It would be nice if you could test it.
NCG done with GHC 6.12.1 w/ -O3
LLVM using a version of HEAD w/ -O3
GCC version 4.4.3 w/ -O3
I have to Point out that any such scheme as is being described would
need to be done quite carefully as to not break pass by reference data
semantics that Haskell enjoys/ the wealth of sharing
Moreover, as I understand it, something like this only is feasible in
general for statically sized data
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 10:42 PM, Bernie Pope florbit...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 March 2010 04:46, Rafael Cunha de Almeida almeida...@gmail.com wrote:
During a talk with a friend I came up with two programs, one written in
C and another in haskell.
snip
The Haskell version:
real
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 6:49 PM, Jason Dagit da...@codersbase.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Bryan O'Sullivan b...@serpentine.com
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Rafael Cunha de Almeida
almeida...@gmail.com wrote:
During a talk with a friend I came up with two
Using bang patterns didn't help almost anything here. Using rem
instead of mod made the time go from 45s to 40s. Now, using -fvia-C
really helped (when I used rem but not using mod). It went down to
10s.
Bang patterns should have helped tons - it isn't GHC thats at fault
here and yes it does
46 matches
Mail list logo
