[FYI] LLVM: function prefix data (a.k.a. tables-next-to-code) committed
ggreif at gmail.com
Mon Sep 16 22:09:49 UTC 2013
On 9/16/13, Carter Schonwald <carter.schonwald at gmail.com> wrote:
> yup! its exciting.
> we were talking about this a bit earlier today on #haskell-llvm, and it
> sounds doable.
> There were some concerns that folks had, but hopefully we can give the llvm
> devs feedback about this before its finalized in LLVM 3.4 so it doesn't
> come with any performance caveats for ghc.
I almost sobered when I read that there must be a machine instruction
embedded in the prefix, but looking at the testcases this doesn't
appear like being mandatory. The prefix can be a simple struct, just
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Gabor Greif <ggreif at gmail.com> wrote:
>> This looks pretty exiting for LLVM IR-generation:
>> GHC 7.10 might generate LLVM IR including embedded tables without
>> resorting to linker tricks/postprocessing when targeting LLVM 3.4!
>> The relevant LLVM bug is http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14080
>> and GHC Trac: http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/4213
>> ghc-devs mailing list
>> ghc-devs at haskell.org
More information about the ghc-devs