Simon Marlow wrote:
On 25/02/2010 02:00, David Terei wrote:
Do we envisage doing anything complex to the Llvm code inside GHC in the
future? I can't think of a reason to.
One thing I would like to investigate at some point is to have the LLVM
binding use the C++ API of LLVM instead of printing out LLVM Assembly.
This should potentially speed up the compilation process since it would
replace the current 4 passes (generate LLVM Assembly, convert to bitcode
[llvm-as], optimise [opt], compile to native code [llc]). With just one.
I believe the current design would be easier to extend for this purpose
then the simplified one you propose. After trying this out I'd be happy
to simplify the LLVM binding if we stick with the current approach of
generating LLVM assembly and calling the tools.
That sounds like a good plan. But in that case wouldn't it make sense to
use the LLVM binding from Hackage?
Probably, sorry I didn't specify it but that was the plan I had. My
point was more that I think its better to leave the LLVM binding as it
is for now since the plan I proposed above seems the better way forward
than optimising the current design.
Cheers,
David
_______________________________________________
Cvs-ghc mailing list
Cvs-ghc@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
