64-bit windows version?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
60 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

64-bit windows version?

Bulat Ziganshin-2
Hello glasgow-haskell-users,

are you plan to implement 64-bit windows GHC version?

--
Best regards,
 Bulat                          mailto:[hidden email]

_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 64-bit windows version?

Simon Marlow-5
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
> Hello glasgow-haskell-users,
>
> are you plan to implement 64-bit windows GHC version?

The main thing standing in the way of this is the lack of a 64-bit port of
mingw.  The latest status update I could find is here:

http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=460D8FC1.64E689DB%40dessent.net

Cheers,
        Simon

_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 64-bit windows version?

skaller-2
On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 12:23 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
> Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
> > Hello glasgow-haskell-users,
> >
> > are you plan to implement 64-bit windows GHC version?
>
> The main thing standing in the way of this is the lack of a 64-bit port of
> mingw.  

Why do you need mingw? What's wrong with MSVC++?

--
John Skaller <skaller at users dot sf dot net>
Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re[2]: 64-bit windows version?

Bulat Ziganshin-2
Hello skaller,

Tuesday, June 19, 2007, 8:15:19 PM, you wrote:
>> > are you plan to implement 64-bit windows GHC version?

> Why do you need mingw? What's wrong with MSVC++?

really! Simon, how about unregisterised build?

skaller, is *free* 64-bit msvc (or any other windows c++ compiler) available?


--
Best regards,
 Bulat                            mailto:[hidden email]

_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re[2]: 64-bit windows version?

skaller-2
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 07:34 +0400, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:

> Hello skaller,
>
> Tuesday, June 19, 2007, 8:15:19 PM, you wrote:
> >> > are you plan to implement 64-bit windows GHC version?
>
> > Why do you need mingw? What's wrong with MSVC++?
>
> really! Simon, how about unregisterised build?
>
> skaller, is *free* 64-bit msvc (or any other windows c++ compiler) available?

Visual Studio Express is a Visual Studio 2005 IDE system for XP
with some features disabled, the disabled features include
interactive debugging, help, online news/blog stuff, etc:
advanced IDE features.

AFAIK the compilers are intact and can be used on the command line
as well as from the IDE. I think you do need to download
the platform SDK separately though. AFAIK on x86_64 platform,
VS is a 32 bit program, as are the compilers, but they can
generate 64 bit code (the 32 and 64 bit compilers are separate
executables and run in distinct environments .. )

One thing to watch though: embedded assembler is gone in new
MSVC++ compilers (due to multi-arch support I guess).
However assembler works in 64 bit, Ocaml 64 bit for Windows uses it.

--
John Skaller <skaller at users dot sf dot net>
Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 64-bit windows version?

Simon Marlow-5
In reply to this post by skaller-2
skaller wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 12:23 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
>> Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
>>> Hello glasgow-haskell-users,
>>>
>>> are you plan to implement 64-bit windows GHC version?
>> The main thing standing in the way of this is the lack of a 64-bit port of
>> mingw.  
>
> Why do you need mingw? What's wrong with MSVC++?

We have talked (extensively) about doing a Windows port using the MS tools
instead of mingw.  Check the archives of cvs-ghc, search for "windows native".
There's no problem in theory, but it's a lot of work.  Peter Tanski has done
some work in this direction, he should be able to tell you more.

I don't think we'll be able to drop the mingw route either, mainly because while
the MS tools are free to download, they're not properly "free", and we want to
retain the ability to have a completely free distribution with no dependencies.

There are people that want a Cygwin port too; personally I think this is heading
in the wrong direction, we want to be more "native" on Windows, using the native
object format and interoperating directly with the native Windows tools.

Cheers,
        Simon
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 64-bit windows version?

Simon Marlow-5
In reply to this post by Bulat Ziganshin-2
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
> Hello skaller,
>
> Tuesday, June 19, 2007, 8:15:19 PM, you wrote:
>>>> are you plan to implement 64-bit windows GHC version?
>
>> Why do you need mingw? What's wrong with MSVC++?
>
> really! Simon, how about unregisterised build?

Unregisterised would still need a C compiler capable of generating 64-bit code.
  Are you talking about using the MS compiler for that?  Certainly possible, but
I'm not sure why you'd want to do it - you'd end up with much slower code than
running the 32-bit compiler.

Cheers,
        Simon
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 64-bit windows version?

skaller-2
In reply to this post by Simon Marlow-5
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 08:49 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:

> I don't think we'll be able to drop the mingw route either, mainly because while
> the MS tools are free to download, they're not properly "free", and we want to
> retain the ability to have a completely free distribution with no dependencies.

I'm not sure I understand this. MS tools are free to download
by anyone, but not redistributable. The binaries needed by
programs *built* by those tools are not only free to download,
they're free to redistribute, and they're less encumbered than
almost all so-called 'free software' products.

Don't forget -- Windows isn't a free operating system.
You're juggling some possible problem with a single source
vendor withdrawing supply (possible) against open source
products which are late to market (definite :)

64 bit Mingw .. will already be years out of date when
it turns up, since MS is focusing on .NET platform.
MSVC++ tools already support CLR, assemblies and .NET:
even if Mingw supported that .. you'd still need Mono
(does it work, really?) for a 'free' platform .. but .NET
is redistributable and available on most modern Windows
platforms already ..

I doubt the Open Source community is as reliable a supplier
for the Windows market as Microsoft. It's really a boutique
market. Cygwin was a major platform in the past, for running
Unix software on Windows.

But now we're talking about a Windows *native* version of GHC,
there's no "Unix" in it. I see no real reason not to build
for the native toolchain .. and plenty of reasons not
to bother with others.

Hmm .. can't MS be coaxed into supplying some support to the
developers? After all, Haskell IS a major lazily evaluated
statically typed functional programming language. Why wouldn't
MS be interested  in bringing GHC on board? They have an
Ocaml (called F#) now..

--
John Skaller <skaller at users dot sf dot net>
Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 64-bit windows version?

Simon Marlow-5
skaller wrote:

> On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 08:49 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
>
>> I don't think we'll be able to drop the mingw route either, mainly because while
>> the MS tools are free to download, they're not properly "free", and we want to
>> retain the ability to have a completely free distribution with no dependencies.
>
> I'm not sure I understand this. MS tools are free to download
> by anyone, but not redistributable. The binaries needed by
> programs *built* by those tools are not only free to download,
> they're free to redistribute, and they're less encumbered than
> almost all so-called 'free software' products.

"The binaries needed by programs built by these tools...", you're referring to
the C runtime DLLs?  Why does that matter?

Note I said "with no dependencies" above.  A Windows native port of GHC would
require you to go to MS and download the assembler and linker separately - we
couldn't automate that, there are click-through licenses and stuff.

> Hmm .. can't MS be coaxed into supplying some support to the
> developers? After all, Haskell IS a major lazily evaluated
> statically typed functional programming language. Why wouldn't
> MS be interested  in bringing GHC on board? They have an
> Ocaml (called F#) now..

MS pays for Ian Lynagh, who works full time on GHC as a contractor.  MS puts
roughly as much money into GHC as it does into F#, FWIW.

Cheers,
        Simon
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 64-bit windows version?

Neil Mitchell
Hi

> > I'm not sure I understand this. MS tools are free to download
> > by anyone, but not redistributable. The binaries needed by
> > programs *built* by those tools are not only free to download,
> > they're free to redistribute, and they're less encumbered than
> > almost all so-called 'free software' products.
>
> "The binaries needed by programs built by these tools...", you're referring to
> the C runtime DLLs?  Why does that matter?
>
> Note I said "with no dependencies" above.  A Windows native port of GHC would
> require you to go to MS and download the assembler and linker separately - we
> couldn't automate that, there are click-through licenses and stuff.

I don't compile GHC on Windows, as its kind of annoying to do, and the
binaries are usually sufficient for my needs. Typically MS tools are
well packaged and even if there is a click through license, it usually
involves checking a box and clicking next. I can't believe that anyone
is going to have any difficulty installing Visual Studio express.

Compare this to Cygwin/Mingw where the packaging is frankly awful, and
makes my head hurt every time I have to install it.

I'm looking forward to having GHC built with Visual Studio, but I can
understand why its not a priority - the advantages are relatively
minimal. What I keep hoping is that Microsoft will put some serious
thought into debugging Haskell - the MS tools for debugging blow away
everything else. (I realise a start is being made in GHCi, and am
looking forward to the end results!)

Thanks

Neil
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 64-bit windows version?

skaller-2
In reply to this post by Simon Marlow-5
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 14:42 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:

> "The binaries needed by programs built by these tools...", you're referring to
> the C runtime DLLs?  Why does that matter?
>
> Note I said "with no dependencies" above.  A Windows native port of GHC would
> require you to go to MS and download the assembler and linker separately - we
> couldn't automate that, there are click-through licenses and stuff.

So what? Felix requires:

(a) C/C++ compiler
(b) Python
(c) Ocaml

you have to download and install these tools on ANY platform,
including Ubuntu Linux. gcc isn't installed on a basic system.
True, with Debian, this can be automated, so you only have
to click on the main package.

I need THREE external tools. Is this a pain? YES!
[On Windows .. it's a breeze on Ubuntu .. :]

Is it too much effort to ask, for someone to use a major
advanced programming language like Haskell?

Don't forget .. Mingw has to be installed too .. and in fact
that is much harder. I tried to install MSYS and gave up.

> MS pays for Ian Lynagh, who works full time on GHC as a contractor.  MS puts
> roughly as much money into GHC as it does into F#, FWIW.

I'm happy to hear that!

Now let me turn the argument around. Mingw is a minor bit player.
The MS toolchain is the main toolchain to support. C++ can't
run on Mingw for example (MS and gcc C++ are incompatible).

GHC needs to target *professional windows programmers*.
They're going to have VS installed already. Haskell is far
too important a language (IMHO) not to have an entry in
the commercial programming arena.

Commercial programming is in a bad way! It NEEDS stuff like
Haskell available.

BTW: I don't really like Windows .. but I want to see Haskell
succeed. Trying to do Haskell on Windows without MSVC++ toolchain
is like trying to work on Linux without binutils... :)


--
John Skaller <skaller at users dot sf dot net>
Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 64-bit windows version?

Simon Marlow-5
In reply to this post by Neil Mitchell
Neil Mitchell wrote:

> Hi
>
>> > I'm not sure I understand this. MS tools are free to download
>> > by anyone, but not redistributable. The binaries needed by
>> > programs *built* by those tools are not only free to download,
>> > they're free to redistribute, and they're less encumbered than
>> > almost all so-called 'free software' products.
>>
>> "The binaries needed by programs built by these tools...", you're
>> referring to
>> the C runtime DLLs?  Why does that matter?
>>
>> Note I said "with no dependencies" above.  A Windows native port of
>> GHC would
>> require you to go to MS and download the assembler and linker
>> separately - we
>> couldn't automate that, there are click-through licenses and stuff.
>
> I don't compile GHC on Windows, as its kind of annoying to do, and the
> binaries are usually sufficient for my needs. Typically MS tools are
> well packaged and even if there is a click through license, it usually
> involves checking a box and clicking next. I can't believe that anyone
> is going to have any difficulty installing Visual Studio express.
>
> Compare this to Cygwin/Mingw where the packaging is frankly awful, and
> makes my head hurt every time I have to install it.

Not a fair comparison - I'm talking about *users* of GHC, who currently do not
have to download anything except GHC itself.  With a Windows native port they'd
have to also get VS Express and the MASM package separately.

GHC *developers* wouldn't be any better off either.  You'd still need either
Cygwin or MSYS for the build environment.  There's no way I'm using MS build
tools, ugh.

Cheers,
        Simon
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 64-bit windows version?

Simon Marlow-5
In reply to this post by skaller-2
skaller wrote:

> GHC needs to target *professional windows programmers*.
> They're going to have VS installed already. Haskell is far
> too important a language (IMHO) not to have an entry in
> the commercial programming arena.
>
> Commercial programming is in a bad way! It NEEDS stuff like
> Haskell available.
>
> BTW: I don't really like Windows .. but I want to see Haskell
> succeed. Trying to do Haskell on Windows without MSVC++ toolchain
> is like trying to work on Linux without binutils... :)

This is a fine point, and probably the biggest reason for doing a Windows native
port.  I'd like to see it happen, but we need help!

Cheers,
        Simon

_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 64-bit windows version?

Isaac Dupree
In reply to this post by Neil Mitchell
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Neil Mitchell wrote:
> Typically MS tools are
> well packaged and even if there is a click through license, it usually
> involves checking a box and clicking next. I can't believe that anyone
> is going to have any difficulty installing Visual Studio express.

I would have some difficulty, because I would feel obliged to read the
license first and decide whether it felt acceptable for me to agree to.
 That's the same reason I haven't started up iTunes on my MacBook -
reading the general Apple-software license was tiring enough!  This is
one place GNU/Linux/(other Free systems) really shine, even compared to
OS X: you don't have to explicitly accept a click-through license the
first time you start everything up (iterated for every new installation
and computer, and they don't tell you whether it's the same version of
the license that you read earlier). (Copyright doesn't require you to
click to agree; I've already read the GPL and a few other Free licenses;
and I trust the FSF's judgment in what freedoms the other miscellaneous
Free licenses grant.)

But I guess that doesn't matter to "most" Windows users... even if
they're developers of FOSS ... ?

Isaac
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGeUihHgcxvIWYTTURAiSmAJ4yy6SinJgfUKARozwcYuxvSoUgdwCgpZD9
JFI0TddUPvYjGogtgjQnVM8=
=FInN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: 64-bit windows version?

Green Bryan - bgreen
In reply to this post by Simon Marlow-5
I would be more than happy to help.  Maybe we need to get a sub-team
together and start plowing through this mine-field?

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Simon
Marlow
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 10:29 AM
To: skaller
Cc: [hidden email]; Bulat Ziganshin
Subject: Re: 64-bit windows version?

skaller wrote:

> GHC needs to target *professional windows programmers*.
> They're going to have VS installed already. Haskell is far
> too important a language (IMHO) not to have an entry in
> the commercial programming arena.
>
> Commercial programming is in a bad way! It NEEDS stuff like
> Haskell available.
>
> BTW: I don't really like Windows .. but I want to see Haskell
> succeed. Trying to do Haskell on Windows without MSVC++ toolchain
> is like trying to work on Linux without binutils... :)

This is a fine point, and probably the biggest reason for doing a
Windows native
port.  I'd like to see it happen, but we need help!

Cheers,
        Simon

_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
*************************************************************************
The information contained in this communication is confidential, is
intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be
legally privileged.

If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited.

If you have received this communication in error, please resend this
communication to the sender and delete the original message or any copy
of it from your computer system.

Thank you.
*************************************************************************
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 64-bit windows version?

Isaac Dupree
In reply to this post by skaller-2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

skaller wrote:
> (MS and gcc C++ are incompatible).

is this still true? GCC has been standardizing its C++ ABI for a while,
and I think there actually weren't any ABI changes noted between 4.1 and
4.2 for most platforms (I don't know if MS C++ is compatible with that
common ABI though).  I could be confused here though.

> BTW: I don't really like Windows .. but I want to see Haskell
> succeed. Trying to do Haskell on Windows without MSVC++ toolchain
> is like trying to work on Linux without binutils... :)

yes, binutils written in Haskell!  Will never happen!  :))

Isaac
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGeUpvHgcxvIWYTTURAimNAKClTAkuRU3pr/ASsfSZdGiYoNLsmwCgo4G2
Oh/mK9MQ2vcRLAeaT4bOsdo=
=0nHh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 64-bit windows version?

Peter Tanski
In reply to this post by Bulat Ziganshin-2


> skaller wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 12:23 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
>>
>>> Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello glasgow-haskell-users,
>>>>
>>>> are you plan to implement 64-bit windows GHC version?
>>>>
>>> The main thing standing in the way of this is the lack of a 64-
>>> bit port of
>>> mingw.
>>>
>>
>> Why do you need mingw? What's wrong with MSVC++?

The largest problem is the build system: GHC uses autoconf with  
custom makefiles.  I have looked into porting the whole thing to a  
Visual Studio project, using SCons (unreliable), CMake (limited  
command line abilities--good for a one-shot build but really just a  
"safe" lowest-common-denominator version of Make), Waf (another  
python-based build system that started as a fork of SCons for the  
KDevelop changeover from Autotools) and Jam.  I would prefer to use  
Jam but I'm afraid I would be the only one who would ever want to  
support it.  Nothing has the auto-configuration abilities you (John)  
built into the Felix Interscript-based system but I do not porting  
the build system (at least) to Interscript would go over well with  
anyone else who wanted to maintain it and the build itself would  
require heavy customisation.  I have tested all of these on a small  
scale (the replacement-Integer library).  The best option seems to be  
to create a VS project (not trivial--lots of glue) so a user may also  
call that from Make (if under Mingw) or pure DOS.

There is also some gcc-specific code in the RTS (inline assembler,  
use of extern inline, etc.)  By the way, as of gcc-4.2 (I believe; I  
know it is true for gcc-4.3)  the use of 'extern inline' now conforms  
strictly to the C99 standard so we will have to add the option '-
fgnu-89-inline' to get the old behaviour back--'extern inline' is  
used in some of the headers.  Converting those 'extern inline's to  
'static inline' or best yet plain 'inline' would also solve the  
problem.  Ian Taylor's message at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-11/ 
msg00006.html describes this in greater detail; his proposal was  
implemented.

> I don't think we'll be able to drop the mingw route either, mainly  
> because while
> the MS tools are free to download, they're not properly "free", and  
> we want to
> retain the ability to have a completely free distribution with no  
> dependencies.

I don't know of any completely free 64-bit compilers for Windows.  
The Intel compilers are free for 30-day evaluation but everything  
else is for Win32.  For the base Win32-native port there are many  
compilers available but I have mostly worked on using CL and Yasm  
(assembler) as replacement back-end compilers for GHC.

> There are people that want a Cygwin port too; personally I think  
> this is heading
> in the wrong direction, we want to be more "native" on Windows,  
> using the native
> object format and interoperating directly with the native Windows  
> tools.

Cygwin has a real problem with gcc: it is far behind everything else  
(gcc-3.4.4, though Mingw isn't much better) and it doesn't look like  
that will change anytime soon.  It  is also only 32-bit, I believe.

Cheers,
Pete
 
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: 64-bit windows version?

Simon Peyton Jones
In reply to this post by Green Bryan - bgreen
| > BTW: I don't really like Windows .. but I want to see Haskell
| > succeed. Trying to do Haskell on Windows without MSVC++ toolchain
| > is like trying to work on Linux without binutils... :)
|
| This is a fine point, and probably the biggest reason for doing a
| Windows native
| port.  I'd like to see it happen, but we need help!


| I would be more than happy to help.  Maybe we need to get a sub-team
| together and start plowing through this mine-field?


That'd be great!  A good way to start might be to start GHC-Trac Wiki page, identify who wants to be involved, and sketch the challenges.

thanks!

Simon
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 64-bit windows version?

Peter Tanski
In reply to this post by Bulat Ziganshin-2
Simon Marlow wrote:
> GHC *developers* wouldn't be any better off either.  You'd still  
> need either
> Cygwin or MSYS for the build environment.  There's no way I'm using  
> MS build
> tools, ugh.

The way I have it set up (so far) is as simple as running configure  
and make--all from the command line, under DOS or Mingw, although  
someone with VS tools may open up the VSproject in the IDE.  Would  
that be o.k.?

I am not particularly enamored with VS, myself but that may be a  
consequence of having a small monitor for my Windows machine and  
constantly comparing it to the Xcode/Emacs combination I normally  
use.  The VS debugger *is* very good and helped me pick out some bugs  
in Yasm quickly--when I only really know how to use gdb.

Cheers,
Pete
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re[2]: 64-bit windows version?

Bulat Ziganshin-2
In reply to this post by Simon Marlow-5
Hello Simon,

Wednesday, June 20, 2007, 11:51:34 AM, you wrote:
>> really! Simon, how about unregisterised build?

> Unregisterised would still need a C compiler capable of generating 64-bit code.
>   Are you talking about using the MS compiler for that?  Certainly possible, but
> I'm not sure why you'd want to do it - you'd end up with much slower code than
> running the 32-bit compiler.

in *my* program all code that is need to be efficient is written in C++ :)
generally speaking, people want to use 64-bit code in order to work
with much larger data space, overall speed may be better than using
32-bit version with 2gb limit

so, if it is a not big problem - afaiu unregisterized build should be
easy? - can you please build such version?

--
Best regards,
 Bulat                            mailto:[hidden email]

_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
123