Replacement for GMP: Update
alec at thened.net
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
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://www.haskell.org//pipermail/glasgow-haskell-users/attachments/20060810/478de090/attachment.bin
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users