- FFI - Haskell.org

RE: ForeignPtr
by Simon Marlow 08 Nov '02

08 Nov '02

> That was Ashley's original proposal, but SimonM responded in > > http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/glasgow-haskell-users/2001-September/00 2290.html > http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/glasgow-haskell-users/2001-September/00 2304.html I think I had the wrong end of the stick; or at least I hadn't appreciated the extreme cleverness of the idea. I think I've got it now, though ;-) Cheers, Simon

1 0

PROJECT FACILITATION
by Victor Ojo 02 Nov '02

02 Nov '02

REPLY TO:victorojo@zwallet.com Pardon the abruptness and the liberty of this letter; It is due to its exigency. letter; It is due to its exigency. I am a government functionary in my country. I write to ask for your help. My colleagues and I are in need of a foreign partner to assist in the transfer of a considerable amount of money. My colleagues and I have deliberated much on the issue at hand. What we require is someone who is reliable and trustworthy, who has a vision and who will be able to manage whatever business in which we shall inject venture capital. We need someone who can share our dreams and ideals. I have the legal title to the sum and we shall go through the legal procedures entailed in both our laws and international laws in transferring the funds to you in trust. Please do not at this point misunderstand my intention, because understandably, we are not acqainted. I do not even know if you will be reliable and trustworthy, but I believe that everything starts with a first step. I know that I need to explain everything clearly to you before you can come to a decision as to whether you can assist me or not, and I will do this as soon as I get a response from you. I am sure that with the insider information I can provide, we will with your help, conclude the transaction within 21 working days. In consideration for your assistance, we have agreed to give you the normal transaction commission obtainable of 10% of the total sum, and another 5% if you can successfully put together an investment portfolio for us, as we will like to invest some of this money in your country, rather than leave it idle in a bank account. rather than leave it idle in a bank account. If you can be of assistance, please write to me for more information, otherwise, I thank you for your patience. information, otherwise, I thank you for your patience. Thank you for your courtesy. Thank you for your courtesy. Best regards, Victor Ojo

1 0

PROJECT FACILITATION
by Victor Ojo 02 Nov '02

02 Nov '02

REPLY TO:victorojo@zwallet.com Pardon the abruptness and the liberty of this letter; It is due to its exigency. letter; It is due to its exigency. I am a government functionary in my country. I write to ask for your help. My colleagues and I are in need of a foreign partner to assist in the transfer of a considerable amount of money. My colleagues and I have deliberated much on the issue at hand. What we require is someone who is reliable and trustworthy, who has a vision and who will be able to manage whatever business in which we shall inject venture capital. We need someone who can share our dreams and ideals. I have the legal title to the sum and we shall go through the legal procedures entailed in both our laws and international laws in transferring the funds to you in trust. Please do not at this point misunderstand my intention, because understandably, we are not acqainted. I do not even know if you will be reliable and trustworthy, but I believe that everything starts with a first step. I know that I need to explain everything clearly to you before you can come to a decision as to whether you can assist me or not, and I will do this as soon as I get a response from you. I am sure that with the insider information I can provide, we will with your help, conclude the transaction within 21 working days. In consideration for your assistance, we have agreed to give you the normal transaction commission obtainable of 10% of the total sum, and another 5% if you can successfully put together an investment portfolio for us, as we will like to invest some of this money in your country, rather than leave it idle in a bank account. rather than leave it idle in a bank account. If you can be of assistance, please write to me for more information, otherwise, I thank you for your patience. information, otherwise, I thank you for your patience. Thank you for your courtesy. Thank you for your courtesy. Best regards, Victor Ojo

1 0

RE: location of HsFFI.h?
by Simon Marlow 30 Oct '02

30 Oct '02

> On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 09:12:01AM -0000, Simon Marlow wrote: > > If this isn't possible, then you can extract the > information from the > > output of 'ghc -v'. The relevant directory is in the > include_dirs field > > of the rts package. > > michaelw@stargate:~$ ghc --print-libdir > /usr/lib/ghc-5.04.2 > michaelw@stargate:~$ Thanks, I forgot I'd added that flag :-) > so: > > GHC_INCLUDES := $(shell ghc --print-libdir)/include > > might help. More correctly, the directory relative to $libdir is found by: $ ghc-pkg --show-package rts --field include_dirs $libdir/include Cheers, Simon

1 0

RE: location of HsFFI.h?
by Simon Marlow 30 Oct '02

30 Oct '02

> I was wondering whether there was any standard way to find HsFFI.h? I > can hardcode it into my makefiles for my own projects, but when i > distribute code, I end up having to add -I lines for every possible > location of it, usually multiplied by every compiler version > it supports > since that is often also in the path name. (and no, hmake is > not really > an option. pure make is my tool). perhaps some option to the haskell > compiler which spits out the appropriate flags to pass to the C > compiler. If you're using GHC, the trick is to use GHC to compile your C code too because it adds the appropriate -I flag to the gcc command line. If this isn't possible, then you can extract the information from the output of 'ghc -v'. The relevant directory is in the include_dirs field of the rts package. Cheers, Simon

3 2

location of HsFFI.h?
by John Meacham 30 Oct '02

30 Oct '02

I was wondering whether there was any standard way to find HsFFI.h? I can hardcode it into my makefiles for my own projects, but when i distribute code, I end up having to add -I lines for every possible location of it, usually multiplied by every compiler version it supports since that is often also in the path name. (and no, hmake is not really an option. pure make is my tool). perhaps some option to the haskell compiler which spits out the appropriate flags to pass to the C compiler. John -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- John Meacham - California Institute of Technology, Alum. - john(a)foo.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Finalizers: conclusion?
by Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk 23 Oct '02

23 Oct '02

22 Oct 2002 01:32:55 +0100, Alastair Reid <alastair(a)reid-consulting-uk.ltd.uk> pisze: > -- keepAlive x y ensures that the finalizer for y is not run > -- until after the finalizer for x has run to completion. What if I do keepAlive p1 p2 >> keepAlive p2 p1? They will never be collected? -- __("< Marcin Kowalczyk \__/ qrczak(a)knm.org.pl ^^ http://qrnik.knm.org.pl/~qrczak/

3 2

RE: The Death of Finalizers
by Simon Peyton-Jones 23 Oct '02

23 Oct '02

| In the meantime, I'm glad we have got a new function | atomicModifyIORef | which I for one will use, when it gets into GHC's regular release. Just before this gets out of the door... any chance of calling it modifyIORef and documenting that it's atomic? Sometimes names can get too long! Not a big deal though. Simon

4 4

RE: The Death of Finalizers
by Simon Marlow 22 Oct '02

22 Oct '02

> Do we still have atomicModifyIORef? > > I don't know that there's that much point now that Haskell finalizers > are gone. I don't have a strong objection (esp. since it seems every > implementation now has it) but it doesn't seem so necessary now. It ought to be significantly faster than using MVars if you can get away with it. I haven't measured it though. Cheers, Simon

2 1

RE: The Death of Finalizers
by Simon Marlow 22 Oct '02

22 Oct '02

> > It has a different type: > > > > atomicModifyIORef :: IORef a -> (a -> (a,b)) -> IO b > > modifyIORef :: IORef a -> (a -> a) -> IO () > > It would break backwards compatability, but > > modifyIORef_ :: IORef a -> (a -> IO a) -> IO () > modifyIORef :: IORef a -> (a -> IO (a, b)) -> IO b > > (both specified atomic) would be consistent with the MVar names. Did you really mean those types, and not the types I quoted? That implies unsafeInterleaveIO if they have to be atomic. Cheers, Simon

2 1