Achim Schneider wrote "As it stands, GHC can't be bootstrapped without a GHC
... ." Yes, this has been my point. If this sort of dependency is to be
embraced there is no reason not to go all the way. We have already gotten to
first and second base. Now it is time to go for the gusto.
Achim Schneider wrote "This may be fairly easy, if the generated script does
not have to come with major build-system capabilities: Leaving out most of
dependency
analysis and support -- at the utmost -- restarting a failed build from
the rule whose source file has last recently changed, otherwise
compiling in a linear order deduced at script generation time should
reduce the problem to serializing the actions generated for a clean
build to a shell script."
This is obvious, but it is one of those things. It can be extraordinary for
anyone to see it. The performance gain that would be achieved by doing it this
way for reasons I have already gone into would be remarkable. It would also
improve the ability of the compiler to optimize the code. It is also remarkably
simple.
_______________________________________________
Cvs-ghc mailing list
Cvs-ghc@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
