Duncan Coutts duncan.coutts at
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
extremely hard:
      * 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 mailing list