Hoopl vs LLVM?
davidterei at gmail.com
Tue Dec 11 00:35:31 CET 2012
Right now there isn't really an overlap with LLVM passes. In general
the feeling of many of the GHC developers is that we don't want to
spend time duplicating what LLVM already does. That said, GHC is an
open source project so someone may be inclined to do so and there
isn't a lot of reason not to accept such patches (Hoopl can be slow
though, so would be -O3 or -O2). We just feel that aligning GHC with
LLVM is the more productive approach going forward, especially when
for example its the only backend on ARM.
In terms of comparison, the high level arch is different as Edward
pointed out. Otherwise LLVM mostly implements fairly known
optimisation algorithms, so not much to steal there.
On 10 December 2012 14:24, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't know my way around the GHC source tree. How can I get the list of
> optimizations implemented with Hoopl? Is there overlap with LLVM's
> optimization passes? If so, has anyone compared the implementations at all?
> Should one group be stealing ideas from the other? Or apples and oranges?
> Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
> Glasgow-haskell-users at haskell.org
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users