Status and future of the LLVM backend

[Ben Gamari]

Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de> writes:

> Hi,
>
>
> Am Montag, den 08.12.2014, 16:34 +0100 schrieb Karel Gardas:
>> On 12/ 8/14 03:49 PM, Joachim Breitner wrote:
>> > So what does that tell us? Maybe Peter can help us: Is it normal for a
>> > Debian system to pretend that its a pre-v6 ARM, even if the actual
>> > hardware is not?
>> 
>> Sorry to get into this, but are you using EABI[1] port of HardFloat[2] 
>> port? Wheezy claims to support[2], the release before this was[1].
>
>
> I’m currently working on what Debian calls armel, so [1]. We’ll also
> have to get it working on armhf (which seems to be [2]). Maybe things
> are different there
>
Indeed I think Karel has identified the difference in that case. I'm on
armhf. Thanks Karel! I didn't realize that armel supported such old
hardware.

>> I'm not sure what you use so I'm asking, anyway, if you use[1], then 
>> it's normal it pretends it's pre-ARMv6. I.e. this is similar to i386 
>> debian port in the past which was running happily on i686 but pretend to 
>> be i386 to be compatible with all the supported hardware...
>
> Yes, that makes sense.
>
> In that case, the use of the slow spinlock implementation is correct,
> and GHC’s build system needs to be fixed to work in that situation,
> right?
>
Indeed. It seems that armel is indeed supposed to support down to
ARMv5 for which we'll need the spinlock fallback.

Cheers,

- Ben
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 472 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/attachments/20141208/be234597/attachment.sig>