On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 08:53 +0000, Simon Marlow wrote:
Duncan Coutts wrote:
On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 12:13 +0000, Simon Marlow wrote:
Yes, if we know we're using it. If we specify -package blah on the command line then we do know we're using it and everything works (because ghc uses the include-dirs when it calls cpp). If we don't specify -package then ghc does not know we need the package until after import chasing is done. Import chasing requires that we run cpp on the .hs file first and that brings us full circle.
I don't see a reason why we shouldn't pass *all* the include paths for the exposed packages to CPP. Indeed that's what I thought we did, but I've just checked and I see we don't. Wouldn't that fix Conal's problem?
Yes it probably would. On my system that'd only be between 25-50 include directories, which I guess is not too bad. Lets hope not too many packages decide they need a "config.h" file. So, presumably by passing all include dirs for all exposed packages that takes into account -package flags, so when Cabal does -hide-all-packages then it gets its desired behaviour. Duncan