gtener at gmail.com
Sun Feb 5 21:09:58 CET 2012
GHC code still depends on RTS code (written in C by the way) which has to
be ported to a specific platform first. Native code generator offers
'registered' and 'unregistered' builds. The first are aware of specific
register layout of a architecture. You can find more rationale why it has
been removed somewhere on GHC wiki or mailing lists.
I think you might be interested in JHC: http://repetae.net/computer/jhc/
By design it compiles Haskell code to efficient C code which is quite easy
to read and hack further. Cross compilation is supported and easy too. The
compiler is somewhat experimental but can handle quite a few programs.
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 19:48, Serge D. Mechveliani <mechvel at botik.ru> wrote:
> Dear GHC team,
> I cannot understand why do you remove the C stage in GHC.
> To my mind: let the result be 3 times slower, but preserve the C code.
> Because it works everyhere, and there is no real need to rewrite
> the same program separately for all the existing processors
> (which number may become, for example, 11000).
> I am naive, and am not a specialist.
> But only an invariant program ever has sense.
> Has the modern GHC a sensible compilation result level to be observed
> (documented?) (graph rewriting code, or like this) ?
> mechvel at botik.ru
> Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
> Glasgow-haskell-users at haskell.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users