- Glasgow-haskell-users

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

24 Oct '03

On 25.10.2003, at 00:01, Diederik van Arkel wrote: > Not necessary, the 10.3 dev tools includes the headers for 10.1 and > 10.2 so you can compile for all three OS revisions from your 10.3 box. Well, but those are only easily accessible from Apple's Xcode IDE; I have no idea how to get the command-line GCC to use them, let alone how to get GHC's makefiles and configure script to pass the correct flags on to GCC. And as I really dislike digging around in Makefiles and configure scripts, I think it would be much simpler if somebody else did the 10.2 build. Cheers, Wolfgang

1 0

RE: library-guide.ps
by Simon Marlow 24 Oct '03

24 Oct '03

> Simon Marlow points at .../ghc/ .../users_guide.ps.gz > > It is shown near it the hierarchical library guide, > which is also needed and which does not provide .ps. Haddock doesn't produce printable output (yet), so the library documentation is only available in HTML I'm afraid. Cheers, Simon

1 0

SPECIALIZEing something from another module
by Hal Daume III 23 Oct '03

23 Oct '03

Is this possible, or need the specializations go in the defining module. Is this decision based on a fundamental problem with allowing specializations anywhere, or was it just a design choice (in which case I would encourage it's removal)... Thanks! - Hal -- Hal Daume III | hdaume(a)isi.edu "Arrest this man, he talks in maths." | www.isi.edu/~hdaume

1 0

library-guide.ps
by Serge D. Mechveliani 23 Oct '03

23 Oct '03

Thanks. Simon Marlow points at .../ghc/ .../users_guide.ps.gz It is shown near it the hierarchical library guide, which is also needed and which does not provide .ps. Regards, ----------------- Serge Mechveliani mechvel(a)botik.ru

1 0

RE: package treating
by Simon Marlow 23 Oct '03

23 Oct '03

> > > By the way, I somehow lost the way to the Postscript file of the > > > GHC User Guide, how does one get it? > > > > http://www.haskell.org/ghc/documentation.html > > > > With .ps, I sometimes print the Manual to the paper, to book. > Say, print the pages 1 -- 300. > I do not know how to do this with .html. > I can convert some small part to .ps when viewing .html. > But it is desirable to be able to convert it all to one .ps > file. > I am sorry for the ignorance, but does .html replace fully .ps ? The postscript is available from the link I gave you. Here's a direct link: http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/users_guide.ps.gz > On last reliable GHC version > ---------------------------- > For any occasion: > it is good to always keep available on public the latest reliable > GHC version. > > For example, the DoCon program failed (so far) with ghc-6.0.1, > due to the gc bug in ghc. > And the DoCon Installing guide says: > "it was tested for ghc-5.02.2 ...". > At least, DoCon user should be able to download and install this > ghc-5.02.2 (in this particular case, I suspect, 5.04 fits). We keep all previous GHC distributions available onlin. Version 5.02.2 is still available here: http://www.haskell.org/ghc/download_ghc_502.html (this is linked from the download page). Cheers, Simon

1 0

Re: package treating
by Serge D. Mechveliani 23 Oct '03

23 Oct '03

Thanks to Simon Marlow for the explanations. > > By the way, I somehow lost the way to the Postscript file of the > > GHC User Guide, how does one get it? > > http://www.haskell.org/ghc/documentation.html > With .ps, I sometimes print the Manual to the paper, to book. Say, print the pages 1 -- 300. I do not know how to do this with .html. I can convert some small part to .ps when viewing .html. But it is desirable to be able to convert it all to one .ps file. I am sorry for the ignorance, but does .html replace fully .ps ? On DoCon test for GHC --------------------- is suggestion to use DoCon for the automatic GHC test. For many years, almost any new GHC version has a bug which is displayed by 1) `making' DoCon ported from the last GHC version, 2) running T_.test. Simon Marlow wrote that the reason for not doing this is that it is a lot of code for the nightly builds. But DoCon source + manual.ps make a file docon-xxx.zip of about 800 K byte, 5 times smaller than ghc-src. It builds in a couple of minutes, it is 20 times faster than ghc builds from source. On last reliable GHC version ---------------------------- For any occasion: it is good to always keep available on public the latest reliable GHC version. For example, the DoCon program failed (so far) with ghc-6.0.1, due to the gc bug in ghc. And the DoCon Installing guide says: "it was tested for ghc-5.02.2 ...". At least, DoCon user should be able to download and install this ghc-5.02.2 (in this particular case, I suspect, 5.04 fits). With kind regards, ----------------- Serge Mechveliani mechvel(a)botik.ru

1 0

RE: Optimization options?
by Simon Marlow 23 Oct '03

23 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. -O2-for-C was removed (from the docs at least) for three reasons: - it is equivalent to -optc-O2 - GCC has a recent history of bugs in -O2, and we didn't want to encourage people to use known-broken compiler options. - it makes very little difference anyway. Cheers, Simon

1 0

RE: Posible bug while optimizing? (Was: RULES for SPECIALIZ(E)ations)
by Simon Peyton-Jones 23 Oct '03

23 Oct '03

Oh yes, this is a bug all right. I'm looking into it. Thanks for reporting it S | -----Original Message----- | From: glasgow-haskell-users-bounces(a)haskell.org [mailto:glasgow-haskell-users- | bounces(a)haskell.org] On Behalf Of Juanma Barranquero | Sent: 22 October 2003 09:58 | To: GHC users | Subject: Re: Posible bug while optimizing? (Was: RULES for SPECIALIZ(E)ations) | | An even simpler example, with just one module: | | ------------------------------------------------------- | module Test where | | import Data.List (genericLength) | | {-# RULES | "genericLength/length" genericLength = length | #-} | ------------------------------------------------------- | | D:\...\hask> ghc -O -fglasgow-exts --make Test.hs | Chasing modules from: Test.hs | Compiling Test ( Test.hs, ./Test.o ) | | D:\...\hask> ghc -O -fglasgow-exts --make Test.hs | Chasing modules from: Test.hs | Skipping Test ( Test.hs, ./Test.o ) | | tcLookupGlobal (id): `Data.List.genericLength' is not in scope | When checking the transformation rule "genericLength/length" | | Surely that *must* be a bug, mustn't? | | | | Juanma | | | _______________________________________________ | Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list | Glasgow-haskell-users(a)haskell.org | http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users

1 0

Re: <interactive>: internal error, ghc-6.0.1
by Serge D. Mechveliani 22 Oct '03

22 Oct '03

On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 12:23:51PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote: > > This is on > > ghc-6.0.1 > > installed from RPM on Red Hat Linux release 7.3 (Valhalla), > > i-386 unknown. > > > > Probably, you can reduce the example several times more. > > > > ghci Main +RTS -M1m -RTS > > > > ..> : Main > > ..> main > > ... > > (<interactive>: internal error: thread_stack: > > weird activation record found on stack: 1564 > > Please report this as a bug to glasgow-haskell-bugs(a)haskell.org .. > > > > Probably, the interpreter manages memory in a wrong way. > > Can you reproduce the effect? > That's a bug, thanks for the report. > > Just out of interest, why are you passing the -M1m flag to ghci? This > sets a bound of 1M on GHC's memory, and causes the compacting GC to kick > in when this bound is approached (which will be almost immediately). > The bug was in the compacting garbage collector, which explains why it > hasn't shown up until now. I was deliberately passing various -Mxx flags to ghci because wanted to find where this simple program manages wrongly the memory. I did this `instead' of increasing the list [1..n] in the example. And I started this test after DoCon's real test crashed in ghci, within reasonable memory, somewhat about -M40m. And generally, it is desirable for the tool to allow, if the user ask this, doing large computation in posibly small space, even by spending much more time. The smaller space suffices, the more flexy and nicer the tool is -- this is my idea. With kind regards, ------------------ Serge Mechveliani mechvel(a)botik.ru

1 0

RE: RULES for SPECIALIZ(E)ations
by Simon Peyton-Jones 22 Oct '03

22 Oct '03

| | I suppose I'm being bitten by User's Guide 7.8.2: | | "If more than one rule matches a call, GHC will choose one arbitrarily | to apply." | | even if a bit later it says: | | "So a rule only matches if the types match too." | | Am I understanding right and it's that so? I think so. After all, the types match for count/generic too. Maybe you want a rule genericLength = length which will replace a call to (genericLength at type Int) by a call to length? You can also use "phases" to control order of rule application (albeit it's crude). http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/pragmas.html#PHA SE-CONTROL Simon

2 3