<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2013/8/26 Ben Lippmeier <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:benl@ouroborus.net" target="_blank">benl@ouroborus.net</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im"><br>
On 23/08/2013, at 3:52 AM, Ryan Newton wrote:<br>
<br>
> Well, what's the long term plan? Is the LLVM backend going to become the only backend at some point?<br>
<br>
</div>I wouldn't argue against ditching the NCG entirely. It's hard to justify fixing NCG performance problems when fixing them won't make the NCG faster than LLVM, and everyone uses LLVM anyway.</blockquote>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> </blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
We're going to need more and more SIMD support when processors supporting the Larrabee New Instructions (LRBni) appear on people's desks. At that time there still won't be a good enough reason to implement those instructions in the NCG.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Ben.<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I hope to implement SIMD support for the native code gen soon. It's not a huge task and having feature parity between LLVM and NCG would be good. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Niklas <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
ghc-devs mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:ghc-devs@haskell.org">ghc-devs@haskell.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs" target="_blank">http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>