- Haskell-Cafe - Haskell.org

RE: Help: writing ffi bindings to a C library
by Bayley, Alistair 31 May '03

31 May '03

So... I'm still trying to write this Oracle OCI ffi binding. Can anyone tell me how to declare the Haskell type for this function: sword OCIEnvCreate (OCIEnv **envp, ub4 mode, dvoid *ctxp, dvoid *(*malocfp)(dvoid *ctxp, size_t size), dvoid *(*ralocfp)(dvoid *ctxp, dvoid *memptr, size_t newsize), void (*mfreefp)(dvoid *ctxp, dvoid *memptr), size_t xtramem_sz, dvoid **usrmempp); Note that when I use it, I'm passing 0 (NULL) into almost all of the args, so the usage in C is typically: rc = OCIEnvCreate(&envhp, OCI_DEFAULT, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0); i.e. I don't care about most of the args, so that should make the Haskell declaration simpler. Some of the arguments are pointers to functions, for example. What I can't figure out is how to declare the type of the first arg. Is is Ptr (Ptr OCIEnv) ? Here's what I have so far (not much, I know): > module Main where > import Foreign > import Foreign.C.Types > import Foreign.C.String > import Foreign.Ptr > data OCIEnv > foreign import ccall "oci.h OCIEnvCreate" ociEnvCreate :: Ptr OCIEnv -> Int -> Int -> Int -> Int -> Int -> Int -> Int -> Int -----Original Message----- From: Ronald Legere [mailto:rjljr2@yahoo.com] Sent: 21 May 2003 20:32 To: 'haskell-cafe(a)haskell.org' Subject: Re: Help: writing ffi bindings to a C library Agreeing with David, but I like to use types rather than (). YOu can do this because, in ghc, you can write: data Blah with no rhs, and it is understood to be an 'opaque' type. Ghc beleives any claims you make about passing Ptr Blah back and forth to C in your foreign import declarations <* Grin *>. As for passing structures back and forth, and accessing the components, you can do it from Haskell or from the "c-side"... I can send you a sample of doing it from haskell if you wish. Ron --- David Roundy <droundy(a)abridgegame.org> wrote: > On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 04:27:10PM +0100, Bayley, > Alistair wrote: > > construct a Ptr a? What type should "a" be?). > > Unless you actually need to ever access their > contents, I'd just define the > pointers to be of type Ptr (), essentially like a > void * pointer in C. No > need to use Storable if they are only ever accessed > through C functions > (which I would hope would be the case). > -- ***************************************************************** The information in this email and in any attachments is confidential and intended solely for the attention and use of the named addressee(s). This information may be subject to legal professional or other privilege or may otherwise be protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. It must not be disclosed to any person without our authority. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are not authorised to and must not disclose, copy, distribute, or retain this message or any part of it. *****************************************************************

2 1

RE: how to break up a large module?
by Simon Peyton-Jones 30 May '03

30 May '03

A non-exported function can be inlined, and its definition deleted. If there is only one call site, it can be inlined no matter how big it is. S | -----Original Message----- | From: haskell-cafe-admin(a)haskell.org [mailto:haskell-cafe-admin@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Jerzy | Karczmarczuk | Sent: 30 May 2003 14:04 | To: haskell-cafe(a)haskell.org | Subject: Re: how to break up a large module? | | Simon Marlow wrote: | | > Be careful about accidental overloading: | ... | | > Be careful with exports. Prune export lists to just those functions | > which need to be exported. | | | How a too long export list can slow-down the target program? | | Jerzy Karczmarczuk | | _______________________________________________ | Haskell-Cafe mailing list | Haskell-Cafe(a)haskell.org | http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

2 1

Italian-crafted Rolex - only $65 - $140!! Free SHIPPING ! !
by tony2003＠yahoo.ca 30 May '03

30 May '03

1 0

RE: how to break up a large module?
by Simon Marlow 30 May '03

30 May '03

> I recently spent a couple of hours breaking up a large module > (2.5k lines) > into several smaller modules. When I finally got it working, > I found that > my program took about 60% longer to run. This was running ghc with -O > optimization. > > Any suggestions how to go about breaking up a module in such > a way that it > doesn't slow things down? Do I just have to go adding INLINE > directives to > all my functions? Or is there some other trick I could use? Be careful about accidental overloading: GHC will specialise if it can see the uses of a function within a single module, but not when the function is in another module. Put type signatures on everything, and consider using SPECIALISE pragmas to eliminate overloading. Be careful with exports. Prune export lists to just those functions which need to be exported. Cheers, Simon

2 1

RE: how to break up a large module?
by Simon Peyton-Jones 30 May '03

30 May '03

60% longer is a lot. I'm surprised. I'd try compiling the whole thing both ways with profiling on and see if that reveals anything S | -----Original Message----- | From: haskell-cafe-admin(a)haskell.org [mailto:haskell-cafe-admin@haskell.org] On Behalf Of David | Roundy | Sent: 30 May 2003 13:06 | To: haskell-cafe(a)haskell.org | Subject: how to break up a large module? | | I recently spent a couple of hours breaking up a large module (2.5k lines) | into several smaller modules. When I finally got it working, I found that | my program took about 60% longer to run. This was running ghc with -O | optimization. | | Any suggestions how to go about breaking up a module in such a way that it | doesn't slow things down? Do I just have to go adding INLINE directives to | all my functions? Or is there some other trick I could use? | | For the moment I've reverted to my single big file method, but it certainly | would be handy to be able to break that up so that it wouldn't take so long | to recompile. | -- | David Roundy | http://www.abridgegame.org | _______________________________________________ | Haskell-Cafe mailing list | Haskell-Cafe(a)haskell.org | http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

1 0

how to break up a large module?
by David Roundy 30 May '03

30 May '03

I recently spent a couple of hours breaking up a large module (2.5k lines) into several smaller modules. When I finally got it working, I found that my program took about 60% longer to run. This was running ghc with -O optimization. Any suggestions how to go about breaking up a module in such a way that it doesn't slow things down? Do I just have to go adding INLINE directives to all my functions? Or is there some other trick I could use? For the moment I've reverted to my single big file method, but it certainly would be handy to be able to break that up so that it wouldn't take so long to recompile. -- David Roundy http://www.abridgegame.org

1 0

Immediate business proposal
by DR MICHAEL KAGIDA 30 May '03

30 May '03

DR MICHAEL KAGIDA LAGOS-NIGERIA A very good day to you. We have an immediate business proposal that involves US$ 30,000,000.00 Million Dollars which we will like to invest under your custody.Once I receive a message from you notifying me of your interest, the details of the transaction/the terms and condition of sharing regarding the business would then be brought to your knowledge. Your urgent response will be highly appreciated and will swiftly bring us to the commencement of the transaction. We hope to conclude. this transaction within 10-14 working days Do not forget to contact me on the receipt of this e-mail address. And please you have to maintain absolute confidentiality as regards this pending transaction. You have to send me your phone and fax numbers so I can contact you. I urgently await your response. Best Regards, Dr MICHAEL KAGIDA NB:PLEASE QUOTE REFERENCE NUMBER FM/01 IN YOUR RESPONSE.

1 0

Hello haskell-cafe !
by DR MICHAEL KAGIDA 30 May '03

30 May '03

DR MICHAEL KAGIDA LAGOS-NIGERIA A very good day to you. We have an immediate business proposal that involves US$ 30,000,000.00 Million Dollars which we will like to invest under your custody.Once I receive a message from you notifying me of your interest, the details of the transaction/the terms and condition of sharing regarding the business would then be brought to your knowledge. Your urgent response will be highly appreciated and will swiftly bring us to the commencement of the transaction. We hope to conclude. this transaction within 10-14 working days Do not forget to contact me on the receipt of this e-mail address. And please you have to maintain absolute confidentiality as regards this pending transaction. You have to send me your phone and fax numbers so I can contact you. I urgently await your response. Best Regards, Dr MICHAEL KAGIDA NB:PLEASE QUOTE REFERENCE NUMBER FM/01 IN YOUR RESPONSE.

1 0

Re: GHCi ASCII art
by andrew cooke 29 May '03

29 May '03

there's a program that generates these things - it's called "figlet" and you can waste hours trying different fonts etc.. _ _ __ _| |__ ___(_) / _` | '_ \ / __| | | (_| | | | | (__| | \__, |_| |_|\___|_| |___/ andrew [moved to cafe] John Sincock <jss(a)au.mensa.org> writes: > since the content of this list is in general so completely beyond > my feeble Haskell comprehension, I feel I must make a nuisance of > myself with some inane criticism of the GHCi ASCII art ... ! -- http://www.acooke.org

7 6

Question about Haskell lexer and parser.
by Serguey Zefirov 28 May '03

28 May '03

Hello haskell-cafe, Question is really about layout rules. If the first lexeme of a module is not a "module" keyword, we insert {n}, where n is the indentation of first lexeme. Then we apply function L to the list of lexemes and stack of layouts: L ({n}:lexemes) [] One of first case definitions of L covers this situation: L ({n}:ts) [] | n>0 = {:L ts [n] -- n>0 means that layout isn't explicit. It's obvious that after our first {n} comes usual lexeme, like Var. This situaiton is covered in the following L rule: L (t:ts) (m:ms) | m /= 0 = }:L (t:ts) ms -- Haskell Report says that we here -- should recognize parsing errors -- but how we can do that in lexer? So we finally get {:}:...lexemes... Is it right? I think this situation is wrong. -------------------------- What I do. I just try to entertain and educate myself trying to implement Haskell interpreter or compiler (what will come first). My approach is to get highly modular and declarative structure of a system (current Haskell lexer uses monads, which I found unsatisfable). -- Best regards, Serguey mailto:sz@uc.ru

1 0