Would it be possible to separate the frontend (Haskell to Core) and backend (Core to machine code) from the Haskell compilers (requiring a standard Core language?)<div><br></div><div>I'm not sure how many extensions required a change to the Core language.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Most likely this is nice in theory but hard in practice?</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 3:25 PM, John A. De Goes <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:john@n-brain.net">john@n-brain.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><br>
Is there any conceivable factoring of GHC that would allow you to sandwich the core of jhc in between the front and back ends of GHC? Or are the architectures so fundamentally incompatible as to make this impossible?<br>
<br>
Such a factoring would be one way the community could help, and if successful, it would allow you to better focus on the really important stuff.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
John A. De Goes<br>
N-BRAIN, Inc.<br>
The Evolution of Collaboration<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.n-brain.net" target="_blank">http://www.n-brain.net</a> | 877-376-2724 x 101<br>
<br>
On Feb 20, 2009, at 4:14 PM, John Meacham wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 11:52:27PM +0100, Thomas Davie wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
On 20 Feb 2009, at 23:44, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hello John,<br>
<br>
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 1:33:12 AM, you wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Don't forget jhc:<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
i was pretty sure that jhc will be as fast as gcc :) unfortunately,<br>
jhc isn't our production compiler<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Why not? There's nothing stopping you from choosing any Haskell<br>
compiler you like. If jhc gives you the performance you need – use it.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Heh. He probably meant something more like "jhc is not a production<br>
compiler" which is true for a lot of projects. For projects of<br>
substantial size or that require many extensions, jhc falls somewhat<br>
short. It is getting better though. Of course, help is always<br>
appreciated. :)<br>
<br>
John<br>
<br>
-- <br>
John Meacham - ⑆<a href="http://repetae.net" target="_blank">repetae.net</a>⑆john⑈<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Haskell-Cafe mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org" target="_blank">Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe" target="_blank">http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe</a><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Haskell-Cafe mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org" target="_blank">Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe" target="_blank">http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>