[Haskell-cafe] speed: ghc vs gcc vs jhc
Alberto G. Corona
agocorona at gmail.com
Fri Feb 20 19:20:14 EST 2009
please update the section "All is not well in jhc-land" because now
things are better isn´t?
2009/2/21 John Meacham <john at repetae.net>
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 02:24:59AM +0300, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
> > Hello John,
> > Saturday, February 21, 2009, 2:14:25 AM, you wrote:
> > > Heh. He probably meant something more like "jhc is not a production
> > > compiler" which is true for a lot of projects. For projects of
> > > substantial size or that require many extensions, jhc falls somewhat
> > > short. It is getting better though. Of course, help is always
> > > appreciated. :)
> > what is "substantial size"? can jhc be used for video codec, i.e.
> > probably no extensions - just raw computations, and thousands or tens
> > of thousands LOCs?
> Perhaps. A bigger issue in practice is that the larger a program is, the
> more likely it is to depend on some library that depends on a ghc
> extension. However, base is almost 10000 lines and jhc can compile that
> into a library without too much effort nowadays, so it might scale.
> If you try and find it fails, then please submit a bug report to
> jhc at haskell.org. Too many bugs go unreported I find.
> If the haskell code has an interface that is strict and unboxable (i.e.
> only unboxable values passed, such as a video codec passing floats might
> be) then compiling it with jhc and foreign exporting the functions then
> foreign importing them into ghc for the bulk of the program would
> probably work. Probably not worth the effort, but could be an
> interesting experiment.
> John Meacham - ⑆repetae.net⑆john⑈
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
More information about the Haskell-Cafe