Replacement for GMP: Update

Alec Berryman alec at
Thu Aug 10 22:15:32 EDT 2006

Reilly Hayes on 2006-08-10 18:36:49 -0700:

> There's one thing I don't entirely understand about the GMP problem.   
> I understand that there are some limitations on GHC's ability to  
> generate relocatable (and therefore dynamically linkable) code on x86  
> (a register allocation problem related to the mangler if I recall the  
> comments in the code correctly).  But this shouldn't prohibit linking  
> GMP in dynamically, should it?  It's just a C library and GCC should  
> happily generate relocatable code.  As a dynamically linked library,  
> there should be no tainting issues to worry about even if the  
> dynamically linked code is shipped with the executable.
> Am I missing something?

No, the LGPL doesn't mandate source redistribution when you redistribute
a binary that is dynamically linked to a LGPL-licensed library.  If GHC
did support dynamically linking programs, it wouldn't be an issue, but
GHC only supports that on OS X.  

I was wondering something similar - is it really easier to replace the
functionality and speed of GMP than to extend GHC's dynamic library
support to other platforms?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url :

More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list