FreeBSD/amd64 registerised running
ndmitchell at gmail.com
Fri Apr 13 05:29:32 EDT 2007
> How do you plan to implement unboxed types? AFAIK, implementing unboxed types
> requires a typed intermediate language. Maybe you could get away with boxing
> all the unboxed types, but then Int would have an extra level of boxing.
Indeed, we intend to box everything. Plus there were compilers which
did unboxing before having unboxed types - as the paper said, it
wasn't as neat, but it was possible. I also have a design for a C
backend where the Int can be packed into the pointer, which removes
the boxes from all evaluated Ints.
> And the other big problem with implementing GHC core is all the primitives...
The Yhc primitives aren't particularly nice, but we have a design in
which they could be made much nicer, and also allow implementation of
the GHC core primitives easily. This will probably be the larger chunk
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users