Missing instance declarations in base

Brandon Allbery allbery.b at gmail.com
Mon Jun 29 21:09:29 UTC 2015

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Henning Thielemann <
lemming at henning-thielemann.de> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015, Evan Laforge wrote:
>  I think it's actually kind of overloaded, because it has haskell-only
>> types like Char.
> good point

Hm. If it does so in any way other than specifying how they marshal to C
types, that sounds like a problem with the definition of Storable. (Flip
side, that marshaling is kinda the point of an FFI.)

>  So I'm against tuples in Storable because tuples don't exist in C, so
>> you should really be using a record with a corresponding struct.
> I have used them to call functions compiled by LLVM-JIT. LLVM supports
> tuple types. I guess that LLVM tuples are just structs without field names.

LLVM does target more than just C (and therefore more than just C types). I
think my question here is "is there an agreed-on ABI for these types,
beyond LLVM's own?"

brandon s allbery kf8nh                               sine nomine associates
allbery.b at gmail.com                                  ballbery at sinenomine.net
unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad        http://sinenomine.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20150629/27b31b34/attachment.html>

More information about the Libraries mailing list