<div>Hmmm. Now that I've had a chance to rewatch the video, I am enlightened.</div><div><br></div><div>Nevertheless, I will confess that I wouldn't mind the idea of just doing an external parallelism wrapper, running multiple sessions of GHC rather than making GHC internally parallel. Hrrrrm.</div>
<br clear="all">Louis Wasserman<br><a href="mailto:wasserman.louis@gmail.com">wasserman.louis@gmail.com</a><br><a href="http://profiles.google.com/wasserman.louis">http://profiles.google.com/wasserman.louis</a><br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 11:57 PM, Evan Laforge <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:qdunkan@gmail.com">qdunkan@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
</div></div>Something I wondered from watching that talk, rather than trying to<br>
make ghc run concurrently internally, can we just have --make, when<br>
faced with multiple possibilities, pick the first one without a<br>
'ModuleName.working' file, create such a working file, and then go to?<br>
<br>
Then you can run 'ghc --make X.hs &; ghc --make X.hs &; ...'.<br>
<br>
In fact, isn't that what make -j already does? I could try it with<br>
the old style 'ghc -M' and pure makefile, but it turns out to be a lot<br>
of work to figure out what packages to include and tangle out the<br>
right .o files and whatnot, work that --make does for me.<br>
</blockquote></div><br>