Hoopl vs LLVM?
johan.tibell at gmail.com
Mon Dec 10 23:40:00 CET 2012
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> wrote:
> Should one group be stealing ideas from the other? Or apples and oranges?
In my opinion we should only implement optimizations in Hoopl that
LLVM cannot do due to lack high-level information that we might have
gotten rid of before we reach the LLVM code generator*. I don't think
we should spend time re-implementing LLVM passes in Hoopl. We have
limited time on our hands (much less than the LLVM team) and we're
unlikely to do a better job than them here, as we're talking about
implementing standard, imperative code optimization. I think our time
is better spent on 1) making sure we pass enough information to LLVM
for it to do a good job and 2) working on higher-level optimizations
* This also means that I think we should try to preserve any
information LLVM might need all the way down to the code generator.
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users