LLVM optimisation passes / tables next to code
marlowsd at gmail.com
Thu Mar 1 09:42:18 CET 2012
On 29/02/2012 12:06, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Simon Marlow<marlowsd at gmail.com> wrote:
>> It's hard to say. All of the proposed solutions are a compromise of one
>> kind or another, and they would all impose some kind of penalty - code size
>> or speed - on the NCG too, since we have to use the same ABI. If the
>> penalty can be shown to be negligible then it would be OK, but of course
>> then we argue about what negligible means. It seems particularly hard to
>> accept any penalty at all since we already have a solution (albeit an ugly
>> one) but which imposes no penalty or ABI changes.
> It should be possible to implement the trick with the jump instruction
> first; it feels like it should be basically doable within a rather
> small time-frame. Then we may actually try to implement TNTC our way,
> do the comparisons, and try to convince the LLVM people to accept this
> other implementation (especially if this implementation is going to be
> simpler and clearer). In case they keep disagreeing, we will still
> have something working.
> Does this make any sense?
Seems reasonable, yes.
More information about the Cvs-ghc