[Haskell-cafe] What is the difference between runhaskell and compile?

[Magicloud Magiclouds]

Sorry for the attachments. They are wireshark files.

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Magicloud Magiclouds
<magicloud.magiclouds at gmail.com> wrote:
> OK. Finally this problem totally prevents my project from working.
> By some guy's suggestion, I did a packet capturing, which really
> showed a difference.
> The rwdc file is for a ldap that at our IDC, which did not work with
> compiled binary. The rodc file is for a ldap that at local, which
> worked all the time. Each file contains two parts of records, at 3.*
> sec and 6/7.* sec. The 3.* part is for runhaskell way. The 6/7.* part
> is for compiled binary way.
> The big difference here is: the failed one sent unbindRequest before
> got bindResponse success.
> Just a clue, I have no idea what is going on....
>
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Chris Dornan <chris at chrisdornan.com> wrote:
>> No problem -- I have attached the executable too.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Magicloud Magiclouds [mailto:magicloud.magiclouds at gmail.com]
>> Sent: 01 June 2012 02:01
>> To: Chris Dornan
>> Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] What is the difference between runhaskell and compile?
>>
>> I see.
>> Although I am using a UTF-8 environment, but all string I was using were ASCIIs.
>> If it is not too much trouble, may I have your LDAP compiled library files? I think since the Main.o is identical, maybe the libraries are different.
>>
>> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Chris Dornan <chris at chrisdornan.com> wrote:
>>> I wouldn't pay too much attention to the fact that the hash tags are
>>> different -- they are very unlikely to be the same across two
>>> installations. (For example, my GHC installations are relocated under
>>> /usr/hs, immediately changing the contents of all of the .conf files
>>> and therefore the hashes.)
>>>
>>> The object files are more interesting, and they are identical!
>>>
>>> At the moment I can only explain what we are seeing by assuming that some change has affected the GHC 7.4.1 runtime system -- but only for compiled programs.
>>>
>>> Are you using non-ASCII characters in your LDAP passwords? I am thinking that maybe the compiled 7.4.1 could be using a different LOCALE from everything else, leading in some way to the passwords being encoded differently en route to the LDAP server. I don't know whether this could actually happen, but it is the kind of mechanism that seem most likely to be causing the problem.
>>>
>>> Did you try to running the variants that read address, account and passwords from standard input? Did it show the same perverse behaviour?
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Magicloud Magiclouds [mailto:magicloud.magiclouds at gmail.com]
>>> Sent: 31 May 2012 02:47
>>> To: Chris Dornan
>>> Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] What is the difference between runhaskell and compile?
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>  I have compared the files. The .o-es are exactly the same. The .hi-s are different.
>>>  The interface hash, flag hash, and "import  -/ LDAP-0.6.6:LDAP.Constants xxxxx(hash)" are different.
>>>  I do not know why only this module (LDAP.Constants) has a different hash. I am not quite familiar with ghc compiling process. May I know your conclusion?
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Chris Dornan <chris at chrisdornan.com> wrote:
>>>> Did you carry out a standard (optimised) build to get ghc-7.4.1?
>>>>
>>>> Are you going to try the justhub rpms or compare the object/header files I sent.
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Magicloud Magiclouds [mailto:magicloud.magiclouds at gmail.com]
>>>> Sent: 30 May 2012 04:07
>>>> To: Chris Dornan
>>>> Cc: Haskell-Cafe
>>>> Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] What is the difference between runhaskell and compile?
>>>>
>>>> A little information.
>>>> I did not notice the gcc/binutils versions. But in CentOS, the ghc
>>>> 7.2.2/7.4.1 were all compiled myself with all default configurations.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:54 PM, Chris Dornan <chris at chrisdornan.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 29 May 2012 02:21, Magicloud Magiclouds
>>>>> <magicloud.magiclouds at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Interesting. I have this code tested in Debian unstable/stable,
>>>>>> CentOS 6.1, all 64 bit, with two different version of libldap2.
>>>>>> At first, Debian-s were installed with 7.4.1, CentOS with 7.2.2.
>>>>>> Only in CentOS the code connected after compiled.
>>>>>> Then I removed 7.4.1 from Debian stable and installed 7.2.2. The code worked.
>>>>>> At last, I installed 7.4.1 in CentOS. The code did not work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could you send the .hi/.o to me, so maybe I could find out the
>>>>>> different? Also the exact original source.
>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting indeed! I am guessing that you are using the GHC-7.4.1
>>>>> bindist from haskell.org.
>>>>>
>>>>> I will try and find some time to marshal the source code and
>>>>> intermediate files (am on the road -- will need to collect it from
>>>>> base, make it generic etc.).
>>>>>
>>>>> You might also like to try the http://justhub.org ghc-7.4.1-hub on
>>>>> your CentOS-6.1 node. It is a separate build from the haskell.org
>>>>> bindist and comes with it's own in-board gcc (4.6.1) and binutils
>>>>> (2.21) used for the build. It should work for you.
>>>>>
>>>>> (You could also try ghc-7.4.2-RC1-hub.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 竹密岂妨流水过
>>>> 山高哪阻野云飞
>>>>
>>>> And for G+, please use magiclouds#gmail.com.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 竹密岂妨流水过
>>> 山高哪阻野云飞
>>>
>>> And for G+, please use magiclouds#gmail.com.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 竹密岂妨流水过
>> 山高哪阻野云飞
>>
>> And for G+, please use magiclouds#gmail.com.
>
>
>
> --
> 竹密岂妨流水过
> 山高哪阻野云飞
>
> And for G+, please use magiclouds#gmail.com.



-- 
竹密岂妨流水过
山高哪阻野云飞

And for G+, please use magiclouds#gmail.com.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: rodc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 1022004 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20120712/18a059fb/attachment-0002.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: rwdc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 275235 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20120712/18a059fb/attachment-0003.obj>