duncan.coutts at worcester.oxford.ac.uk
Wed Jun 2 12:08:35 EDT 2004
On Wed, 2004-06-02 at 16:14, scott west wrote:
> >If you're after performance (rather than simply working), you'll need to
> >wait for a registered build, or if you've got the assembler hacking
> >skills you can help out.
> I'm afraid of the few skills I have (walking, breathing, eating, etc),
> working in assembler isn't one of them! And if I lower my standards (an
> easy way to stay happy!) and just settle for a working, not
> performance-oriented build, are my options basically porting it myself,
> as per the instructions in the build-guide?
Someone mentioned they had an unregistered build working so you could
see if that's available or if you can get sufficiently detailed
instructions to do it yourself.
As for a registered build see:
You'd have to do it yourself or persuade/bully/pay someone else to do
it. It may be beyond your assembler skill but it's not necessarily
* You're not changing OS or linker format
* the arch is 64 bit, but ghc has been ported to 64 bit archs
before I believe (Sparc64?)
* The cpu register layout is similar to x86 (though the calling
convention / C ABI is slightly different)
You're paying the price of being an early adopter :-). If any of the ghc
developers had an AMD64, there'd probably be a registered build by now.
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users