How MD are .hi files?
marlowsd at gmail.com
Thu May 15 05:29:50 EDT 2008
Matthias Kilian wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:35:36AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
>>> for an unregisterised ghc-6.8.2 (or newer), are the .hi files
>>> dependent (except for the 32 vs. 64 bit word size)? I had a quick
>>> look at the stuff in compiler/iface, but the only MD part I found
>>> was that 32/64 bit difference.
>> The word size is probably the only dependency, but there are many reasons
>> that you can't just take the .hc/.hi files generated by an unregisterised
>> build on one machine and expect them to work on another machine.
> I really don't expect this. I just decided to be lazy and provide
> not only .hc files but also .hi files for the OpenBSD port, and
> then I thought: "does this make sense at all? Can it even be of use
> for porting GHC to other archs on OpenBSD, or for the NetBSD folks
> working on GHC?"
Here's a message I wrote quite a while ago on this topic:
some of that is out of date, but at least it describes most of the issues
with having a platform-independen hc bootstrap.
>  Of course, the correct solution would not need the .hi files,
> but just use the stage1 bootstrapped from .hc files to start
> rebuilding the libraries. But that would require even more hacking
> on the Makefiles, and I've already an insane amount of hacks sitting
If the .hc files were platform independent, then the .hi files would be
too, by definition.
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users