[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GHC armel build

Hi Martin,

On Fri, 2007-11-16 at 18:54 +0000, Martin Guy wrote:
> Fortunately, for the Debian build, -lgmp3 takes priority, but that
> will cause breakage on other ARM EABI builds without libgmp3, and
> means inserting defined(__ARM_EABI__) clauses into those tests.

Changing the condition is one option. I was actually going to suggest
updating to a more recent copy of gmp which replaces this with a build
time check that's run from the configure script. I don't know whether
an update is actually feasible though.

> Will you file a bug/patch to the GHC group?

I'm going to report any issues I find to the GHC folks, yes.

> > Martin, Wookey says you are also working on a GHC build for armel. Are
> > you aiming for an unregisterised build or a full port? How far along
> > have you got? Have I missed anything up to where I am now?
> It's been relatively lumpy ride, as you will probably find, but I
> haven't been writing notes as I go.
> Yes, you do need a stage 2 compiler to be able to build the full final
> Debian ghc so you are on the right track.

OK, thanks for confirming.

> I don't know what hardware you have been given access to, but you will
> find that the final build peaks at 280MB of VM,

Is that ghc itself? I ask because I've seen both haddock and ld run amok
when building Haskell apps before.

>  and unless you have
> 256MB+128 swap or lots of RAM the Debian build will die after churning
> for three days (at 266MHz). Fortunately the armel buildds have 512MB.

The machine the build is running on is PXA 270 based and has 256MB of
RAM and no swap. Also, the box appears to be running out of disk

That said, I wonder whether the current duplication of efforts is any
good. I'm probably going to leave the current build running (unless the
machine is needed for something else) because I want to know whether
what I've done leads to a working compiler but do you think there's any
point in me continuing beyond that point? AIUI, you've got a second
stage compiler built already?

> Whether I do a registerised one or not depends what ARM decide to ask
> me to do. Until I hear otherwise I am assuming they want to follow the
> shortest route to lenny certification.

Makes sense.



Reply to: