jan.stolarek at p.lodz.pl
Wed Oct 23 19:11:36 UTC 2013
Brett, if you'd like to do some work on Hoopl and contribute to GHC at the same time please take a
This page sumarizes some conclusions Simon and I reached during my summer internship. In the end I
didn't have enough time to implement them and most likely I won't. Maybe you'd be interested in
picking up that project?
Dnia środa, 23 października 2013, Austin Seipp napisał:
> *Sigh*. Resending to list from the correct email...
> Part of it, probably, is that Hoopl actually costs quite a bit in
> terms of efficiency, both in use (e.g. compiler paasses) and
> integration (i.e. using the library at all.) Simon Marlow spent quite
> a lot of time bringing the new code generator up-to-par with the old
> one in terms of compilation time, but it was a tough battle. In
> particular, you'll notice all the Monad types from Hoopl are actually
> specialized to hell in the compiler, and this is precisely the reasons
> for doing so.
> On the whole, Hoopl will probably always cost a little more - the new
> backend requires more passes due to its design, so there will always
> be some cost associated with that. But we only want that cost, and not
> the Hoopl overhead itself. :) If you can find a way to introduce new
> passes or more flexible optimizations, I'm sure we'd still like to
> look at them, though.
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Brett Letner <brettletner at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> As for the transformations you're trying to implement. You are aware
> >> that they are already
> >> implemented in GHC but without Hoopl?
> > Is that because the ghc code just hasn't been updated yet (no need to if
> > it is already working) or because those sorts of transformations are
> > outside the scope of what hoopl does (or was intended to do)?
> > Thank you,
> > Brett
> > _______________________________________________
> > ghc-devs mailing list
> > ghc-devs at haskell.org
> > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
More information about the ghc-devs