Peter Tanski wrote:
On Nov 15, 2006, at 11:45 AM, Simon Marlow wrote:
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Wednesday, November 15, 2006, 12:19:29 PM, you wrote:
The reason for this was that I was assuming porting the mangler to
understand
MASM syntax would be a huge effort. However, if we can use YASM or
something
else with GAS syntax, it might be feasible. Still, going NCG- only
is the
preferred solution, and it's the direction we want to move in.
well, while C compilers generate better code - please try to support
them. in this particular case, -fvia-C will make accessible both MS
and Intel compilers, and the latter is the best C compiler at the
moment
It'll need a *lot* of work in the mangler (that horrible Perl script)
to support mangling the output from the MS/Intel compilers. And it's
not even worth the effort unless you put some work into the back-end
to generate C code that can be optimised better by a C compiler.
The reason to keep -fvia-C would be the same reason it is still here: a
fair amount of the optimisation is passed to GCC--not just in the area
of loop unrolling.
In fact, on the code generated by GHC, GCC's optimisations are mostly
ineffectual. In order to make better use of GCC's optimisations we would have
to make changes in the backend to generate more gcc-friendly code, and I'm not
at all convinced that's a good long-term strategy.
Cheers,
Simon
_______________________________________________
Cvs-ghc mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
