Future of DYNAMIC_GHC_PROGRAMS?
I need to build GHC 7.8 so that Template Haskell will work without shared libraries (due to a shortage of space). I understand that this can be done by turning off DYNAMIC_GHC_PROGRAMS and associated build options. Is this possibility going to be kept going forward, or will it be deprecated once dynamic GHC is fully supported on all platforms? -- View this message in context: http://haskell.1045720.n5.nabble.com/Future-of-DYNAMIC-GHC-PROGRAMS-tp574979... Sent from the Haskell - Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
harry wrote
I need to build GHC 7.8 so that Template Haskell will work without shared libraries (due to a shortage of space).
I understand that this can be done by turning off DYNAMIC_GHC_PROGRAMS and associated build options. Is this possibility going to be kept going forward, or will it be deprecated once dynamic GHC is fully supported on all platforms?
PS This is for Linux x64. -- View this message in context: http://haskell.1045720.n5.nabble.com/Future-of-DYNAMIC-GHC-PROGRAMS-tp574979... Sent from the Haskell - Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On 19/05/2014 13:51, harry wrote:
harry wrote
I need to build GHC 7.8 so that Template Haskell will work without shared libraries (due to a shortage of space).
I understand that this can be done by turning off DYNAMIC_GHC_PROGRAMS and associated build options. Is this possibility going to be kept going forward, or will it be deprecated once dynamic GHC is fully supported on all platforms?
PS This is for Linux x64.
We may yet go back and turn DYNAMIC_GHC_PROGRAMS off by default, it has yet to be decided. The worst situation would be to have to support both, so I imagine once we've decided one way or the other we'll deprecated the other method. Is it just shortage of space, or is there anything else that pushes you towards DYNAMIC_GHC_PROGRAMS=NO? Isn't disk space cheap? Cheers, Simon
On May 24, 2014 11:48 AM, "Simon Marlow"
On 19/05/2014 13:51, harry wrote:
harry wrote
I need to build GHC 7.8 so that Template Haskell will work without
shared
libraries (due to a shortage of space).
I understand that this can be done by turning off DYNAMIC_GHC_PROGRAMS and associated build options. Is this possibility going to be kept going forward, or will it be deprecated once dynamic GHC is fully supported on all platforms?
PS This is for Linux x64.
We may yet go back and turn DYNAMIC_GHC_PROGRAMS off by default, it has yet to be decided. The worst situation would be to have to support both, so I imagine once we've decided one way or the other we'll deprecated the other method.
Is it just shortage of space, or is there anything else that pushes you towards DYNAMIC_GHC_PROGRAMS=NO? Isn't disk space cheap?
Cheers, Simon
Speaking for myself, but I've noticed compilation times can be much shorter with DYNAMIC_GHC_PROGRAMS=NO. On one project using dynamic ghc added about 18 minutes to the build time (45 minutes vs 27). That's significant enough that we're leaning towards static ghc for now.
Simon Marlow-7 wrote
Is it just shortage of space, or is there anything else that pushes you towards DYNAMIC_GHC_PROGRAMS=NO? Isn't disk space cheap?
Disc space is prohibitively expensive for zero-budget open source projects deployed to the free tier of cloud computing providers. We typically get 1Gb for everything, including GHC, third-party libraries, our own code, and data. A full install of GHC is nearly 1Gb by itself. -- View this message in context: http://haskell.1045720.n5.nabble.com/Future-of-DYNAMIC-GHC-PROGRAMS-tp574979... Sent from the Haskell - Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
You probably want to compile locally, e.g. with Vagrant, and then send the binary "into the cloud"
Tom
El May 25, 2014, a las 2:36, harry
Simon Marlow-7 wrote
Is it just shortage of space, or is there anything else that pushes you towards DYNAMIC_GHC_PROGRAMS=NO? Isn't disk space cheap?
Disc space is prohibitively expensive for zero-budget open source projects deployed to the free tier of cloud computing providers.
We typically get 1Gb for everything, including GHC, third-party libraries, our own code, and data. A full install of GHC is nearly 1Gb by itself.
-- View this message in context: http://haskell.1045720.n5.nabble.com/Future-of-DYNAMIC-GHC-PROGRAMS-tp574979... Sent from the Haskell - Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
participants (4)
-
amindfv＠gmail.com -
harry -
John Lato -
Simon Marlow