MacOS X GHC Status

2002-03-08 Thread Wolfgang Thaller

Some programs work, including green-card and some HOpenGL programs.

GHC, compiled with my registerized version, crashes.
At some point, there is pointer on the Stg Stack that points into data space.
However, it doesn't point to a closure. In points to a place just 
after the last data symbol in of one GHC module, and before the next 
(there's quite some stuff between those two modules, and I have no 
idea what the linker puts there).
The word at that position is definitely not a valid info pointer, it 
points about 300 megabytes above the heap (into unmapped space).
MacOS X doesn't yet support watchpoints, so I still have no idea 
who put this strange pointer onto the stack. Under what conditions 
are pointers into data space
put on the stack? Any ideas how I could go about debugging this? How 
can I possibly ever find out what code is putting this nonsense value 
on the stack?

For now, I'll try to find some smaller programs that crash, too.


Wolfgang
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users



Re: GHC status

1997-07-24 Thread Manuel Chakravarty

 I read a nice paper recently "The cathedral and the bazaar" by Eric Raymond,
 reflecting on his experience Linux, and in particular of developing
 "fetchmail".  You can find it at
   http://locke.ccil.org/~esr/writings/cathedral.html
 
 It's really worth reading.  One particular thing he suggests is making very
 frequent releases, even if they are buggy (like daily when in intense
 development mode).  I've been brought up to think that releasing buggy
 software is likely to discourage one's users, but perhaps not if the
 non-buggy versions (ha!) are prominently so flagged, so that "users" can
 stick to them, while "developers" can pull in the latest one.  Comments? 
 (Read the Raymond paper first.)

Very nice paper, I greatly enjoyed reading it. I think that the Linux
kind of frequent releases may actually be worth a try. For the
libraries it is most certainly worth it. For the compiler proper, it
probably depends heavily on how many people actually install the
sources or even build from them. My impression from the mailing lists
is that a substantial number of users do this.

Probably a version numbering scheme like that of Linux is necessary to
distinguish stable from experimental versions (Linux uses X.Y.Z where
Y is even for stable and odd for experimental versions). Linux ftp
sites usually keep the even and odd kernel versions in two separate
subdirectories to avoid confusion.

Manuel