Advice needed: programmatically generating primops?
illissius at gmail.com
Fri Feb 15 13:03:44 CET 2013
GHC's build process uses the system cpp, not cpphs? The two behaved
rather differently in my experience.
With regards to #s in names, I found this:
AFAIK traditional mode is necessary to preserve whitespace, and
primops.txt.pp certainly /looks/ like it cares about whitespace, so if
that disables concatenation on the other hand then it might be a no-go
after all. But following the S.O. answer, maybe concatenation could
just be implemented as #define F(X) X, #define CAT(A, B) F(A)F(B)? The
cpp on my system right now (OS X) is confusing me by seeming to use
traditional mode even when I don't specify it, and not doing anything
differently when I do, and clang -E does another thing again and
likewise doesn't seem to care about -Wp,-traditional, so I'm not
feeling a lot of trust in my own experimentation.
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Geoffrey Mainland
<mainland at apeiron.net> wrote:
> That was what I wanted to do at first, but I don't think it's possible.
> First of all, on Linux at least, we invoke the preprocessor with
> -traditional, so concatenation is not available. That could be changed.
> Without -traditional, CPP doesn't like the # characters in the names of
> our primops. If you see how to get around that issue, please let me know
> On 02/15/2013 11:08 AM, Gábor Lehel wrote:
>> Could it be done with CPP macros perhaps, instead of a separate code
>> generator program? If the boilerplate is fairly regular and only
>> requires placeholder-substitution, identifier concatenation and
>> stringification, it could be an option. Just a thought.
>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Geoffrey Mainland
>> <mainland at apeiron.net> wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>> There is a huge amount of boilerplate involved in adding a full
>>> complement of vector primops to GHC. I would like to reduce this
>>> boilerplate by programmatically generating the vector primops. My plan
>>> is to add utils/genvecprimops and #include its output into
>>> Does this sound reasonable? Any objections? While I'm at it, is there
>>> any related cleanup I could undertake?
>>> ghc-devs mailing list
>>> ghc-devs at haskell.org
Your ship was destroyed in a monadic eruption.
More information about the ghc-devs