2008/7/4 Claus Reinke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>>> Looks like it doesn't like the bang pattern. What version of Haddock >>>> are you using? >>> >>> 0.8. Why, is it safe to use Haddock 2 in the GHC build yet?-) >> >> Well, it is possible with some effort, so I just wanted to make sure >> it's not a bug. > > How much effort? Simon M's new ghc-path package gives you > easy access to the ghc installation paths, and as long as all > Haddock invocations are run with the final ghc, after ghc has bootstrapped > itself, the files ought to be useable and consistent, right?
The problem is that Haddock has to be built with the final GHC version, otherwise it can't use the final version's interface files. So I was just referring to the method of building GHC without docs, then using it to build Haddock and then installing the docs. I was not referring to any new method of solving this. Well, there are actually other ways of doing it (now that we are on this topic again). You could for example install the boot libs with Haddock's GHC (temporarily and in-place during the build of the new GHC) and then Haddock could be used to generate the docs without having to build it with the new GHC. David _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list Cvs-ghc@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
