- Glasgow-haskell-users

ghc-6.0.1 on Mac OS X 10.3 (Panther)
by Gregory Wright 28 Oct '03

28 Oct '03

Hi Wolfgang, I just updated my powerbook to Panther and tried my old ghci image (built under Jaguar). It seems to run OK, although I haven't tested it extensively. I used it with both the terminal interface and emacs. It may be possible to compile a Panther compiler using a ghc built under Jaguar; I'll test this if I don't run into other issues in the next few days. Best Wishes, Greg Wright

1 0

Special Invitation :-) HC&A Report (November 2003)
by C.Reinke 28 Oct '03

28 Oct '03

Dear GHC/GPH/GDH users and developers, in case you haven't seen the calls for contributions on the main Haskell list: the Haskell community hopes to hear from you about all the interesting stuff you've been brewing over the last six months, not to mention the even more interesting stuff in the pipeline!-) Simon PJ has sent an update for GHC itself, but there have been several interesting developments, here on the list, or on workshops, etc. during the last six months, which are not yet represented/ documented in the draft of our report. Here's a non-exclusive list of topics that are not yet included: - Simon M.' usual batch (he's away;-): - Concurrent Haskell - Alex/Happy - Haddock - hierarchical libraries (the libraries list members are taking care of this one) - Robert Ennal's new ghc debugger - Wolfgang Thaller's bound threads work - the whole parallel and distributed Haskell story.. - etc., etc., etc. .. Check the topics and contributors list to see what still needs filling in: http://www.haskell.org/communities/topics.html ----------------------------------------------------------------- Haskell Communities and Activities Report (November 2003 edition) http://www.haskell.org/communities/ Could everybody send in their individual reports ** by the end of THIS week ** ? Please?-) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks, Claus (current editor)

1 0

DiffArray Performance
by Adrian Hey 28 Oct '03

28 Oct '03

Hello, I've been trying to optimise the following code.. -- Search Tree data type newtype STree = STree (Array Int (STree,[Match])) -- Initial value for Search Tree sTree0 :: STree sTree0 = STree (array (0,9) [(n,(sTree0,[]))| n <- [0..9]]) -- Make the search tree from a list of words makeSTree :: [String] -> STree makeSTree ws = foldl' putWord sTree0 pairs where pairs = [let ps = packString w in ps `seq` (word2keys w, MatchW ps) | w<-ws] word2keys cs = [getKey (toUpper c) | c <- cs, c /= '"' , c /= '-' ] putWord stree (keys,m) = put keys stree where put [] _ = error "makeSTree: empty Keys" put [k] (STree a) = let (t,ms) = a ! k in STree (a // [(k,(t,m:ms))]) put (k:ks) (STree a) = let (t,ms) = a ! k t' = put ks t in t' `seq` STree (a // [(k,(t',ms))]) This seems to be taking about 4.8 seconds (of 5.1 seconds total program execution time) for the input I'm using. I thought using DiffArrays might be faster, but no such luck. Execution time rose to 9.5 *minutes*. Is this what I should expect to see? I'm using ghc 6.0, BTW. Thanks -- Adrian Hey

2 3

command line option --show-iface
by Steffen Mazanek 27 Oct '03

27 Oct '03

Hello, the following error is slightly confusing: ghc --show-iface ghc-6.0.1: unrecognised flag: --show-iface Usage: For basic information, try the `--help' option. ghc --show-iface Unify.hi __interface "Main" Unify 1 where __export Unify Unifiable{mgu} match mguType varBind; ... A hint in the right direction would be more convenient :-) Maybe in /ghc/compiler/main/DriverUtil.hs a function unknownFlagErrUsage :: String->String -> a unknownFlagErrUsage f specusage = throwDyn (UsageError ("unrecognised flag: " ++ f ++ "\n" ++ "hint: " ++ specusage)) and changing processOneArg from DriverFlags.hs HasArg fio -> if rest /= "" then fio rest >> return args else case args of [] -> unknownFlagErrUsage dash_arg "argument for flag expected" (arg1:args1) -> fio arg1 >> return args1 Would this be ok? Regards, Steffen

1 0

Re: Question about profiling in GHC...
by Kirsten Chevalier 27 Oct '03

27 Oct '03

On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 12:00:04PM -0500, glasgow-haskell-users-request(a)haskell.org wrote: > When I compile my program without "-prof -auto-all" option (no > profiling support), its execution time is about 140s (compiled with > -O2). When compiled with profiling support, the time spent by the > program is about 180s (I used my own timer to measure this). Of > course, the additional 40s is caused by the profiling annotation code. > However, the profiler says (in the ".prof" file produced at the end of > execution) that the time spent is about 85s. I suppose that the time > measured by the profiler is only for evaluation of the main function > of my program (I have compiled all modules with "-prof-all"). But what > kind of computation is performed in the rest 95s (180s - 85s) ????? > Garbage collection ??? Yes, it's probably garbage collection. To be sure, you can run your program with the "-t" RTS option, which will create a file in the current working directory named "foo.stat" if the executable is named "foo". The resulting file will contain the total amount of time spent, the mutator time, and the GC time. (I recently ran into this problem myself...) -- Kirsten Chevalier * krc(a)cs.berkeley.edu * Often in error, never in doubt "But just because we're conditioned to view some things as disgusting and immoral doesn't mean that some things aren't, in actual point of fact, disgusting and immoral. Human sacrifice, for instance. Or cannibalism. Or Ann Coulter." -- Dan Savage http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~krc/

1 0

Re: UArray question....
by heron_carvalho 27 Oct '03

27 Oct '03

Hi, thanks for your answer. In the distributed parallel extension that we are developing, programmers are free to use immutable or mutable arrays and to transmit them between processes (the language have mechanisms to make transparent send/recv operations). Thus, it is important to give efficient marshalling for any array type. With StorableArrays, GHC offers good support, but for immutable arrays types, we have to copy element by element (worse performance). But someone can explain how unboxed arrays are stored in memory ? Heron > AFAIK, no. That's the whole point of StorableArrays. Why can't you use > these instead of UArrays? > > - Hal > > On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, heron_carvalho wrote: > > > Dear colleagues, > > > > In GHC/FFI, is there some way (is it possible ?) t o > > access DIRECTLY an array of UArray type (immutable) i n a > > sequential contiguous memory buffer (in C side, for > > example) without to need to copy the array elements o ne > > by one ? GHC hackers and implementors are wellcome... :-) > > My interest is to transmit the array over a network u sing > > MPI, but avoiding marshalling overheads. > > > > It is easy to do this with StorableArray's in the IO > > monad, of course, but I need to use UArray. > > > > > > Heron de Carvalho > > > > > > > > > > _____________________________________________________ _____________________ > > Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela. > > AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis! > > http://antipopup.uol.com.br/ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list > > Glasgow-haskell-users(a)haskell.org > > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow- haskell-users > > > > -- > Hal Daume III | hdau me(a)isi.edu > "Arrest this man, he talks in maths." | www. isi.edu/~hdaume > > _______________________________________________ > Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list > Glasgow-haskell-users(a)haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow- haskell-users > __________________________________________________________________________ Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela. AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis! http://antipopup.uol.com.br/

1 0

Optimization options?
by Juanma Barranquero 27 Oct '03

27 Oct '03

User's Guide 6.2 says: "So, when we want very fast code, we use: -O -fvia-C." but I've seen programs which use the (apparently undocumented) -O2-for-C flag too. In fact, generally speaking anyone of: -O -fvia-C -O2 -fvia-C -O -fvia-C -O2-for-C -O2 -fvia-C -O2-for-C produces different output... So, which is the best choice? Juanma

2 2

UArray question....
by heron_carvalho 27 Oct '03

27 Oct '03

Dear colleagues, In GHC/FFI, is there some way (is it possible ?) to access DIRECTLY an array of UArray type (immutable) in a sequential contiguous memory buffer (in C side, for example) without to need to copy the array elements one by one ? GHC hackers and implementors are wellcome... :-) My interest is to transmit the array over a network using MPI, but avoiding marshalling overheads. It is easy to do this with StorableArray's in the IO monad, of course, but I need to use UArray. Heron de Carvalho __________________________________________________________________________ Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela. AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis! http://antipopup.uol.com.br/

2 1

Question about profiling in GHC...
by Heron 27 Oct '03

27 Oct '03

Dear GHC users, I am using GHC profilling tool and I think you can help me to answer a (apparently) simple question: When I compile my program without "-prof -auto-all" option (no profiling support), its execution time is about 140s (compiled with -O2). When compiled with profiling support, the time spent by the program is about 180s (I used my own timer to measure this). Of course, the additional 40s is caused by the profiling annotation code. However, the profiler says (in the ".prof" file produced at the end of execution) that the time spent is about 85s. I suppose that the time measured by the profiler is only for evaluation of the main function of my program (I have compiled all modules with "-prof-all"). But what kind of computation is performed in the rest 95s (180s - 85s) ????? Garbage collection ??? The use of -O2 option have some effect in the profiling ? I am asking this because when I use -O2 when compiling some concurrent Haskell programs that I have implemented in my work, the code assumes strange and not expected behaviour. Best Regards, Heron de Carvalho

1 0

"Job Opening" - Mac OS X 10.2 Binary Packages
by Wolfgang Thaller 24 Oct '03

24 Oct '03

Dear GHC for Mac OS X Users, As you probably know, Mac OS X 10.3 a.k.a. Panther is being officially released today. I'm going to upgrade my Powerbook right away. Panther adds some new functions in Darwin (for example, dlfcn.h and proper wchar support). GHC will automatically make use of these new features, but that means that versions of GHC built on Panther will not work on previous versions of Mac OS X. Which brings me to the point of this mail: When GHC 6.2 is released, I probably won't have access to a Mac running Mac OS 10.2 any more, which means that my binaries for GHC 6.2 will _require_ Mac OS X 10.3. So would someone please step forward and accept the role of GHC packager for Mac OS X 10.2? Cheers, Wolfgang

2 1