Proposal: Improving the LLVM backend by packaging it
sophie at traumapony.org
Fri Oct 31 06:33:36 UTC 2014
Also, it could be a chance to make it easier to experiment with things like
On 31 October 2014 15:18, Sophie Taylor <sophie at traumapony.org> wrote:
> If this does happen, it'd probably make sense to use this as a chance to
> refactor out the LLVM bits and use the llvm-general package. llvm-general
> seems to only depend on base libraries (apart from parsec, which seems to
> only be used for parsing data layout formats; it could probably be disabled
> with a compiler flag if we construct the data layout structures directly;
> It seems a more principled way than what is currently implemented, and work
> done to improve that library via ghc would also help every other user of
> the library, and visa versa.
> On 27 October 2014 19:25, Sergei Trofimovich <slyich at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 18:52:53 -0500
>> Austin Seipp <austin at well-typed.com> wrote:
>> > I won't repeat what's on the wiki page too much, but the TL;DR version
>> > is: we should start packaging a version of LLVM, and shipping it with
>> > e.g. binary distributions of GHC. It's just a lot better for everyone.
>> > I know we're normally fairly hesitant about things like this (shipping
>> > external dependencies), but I think it's the only sane thing to do
>> > here, and the situation is fairly unique in that it's not actually
>> > very complicated to implement or support, I think.
>> That makes a lot of sense! Gentoo allows user
>> upgrade llvm and ghc independently, which makes
>> syncing harder. Thus Gentoo does not care much
>> about llvm support in ghc.
>> ghc-devs mailing list
>> ghc-devs at haskell.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ghc-devs