On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Simon Marlow <[email protected]> wrote: > > It's hard to say. All of the proposed solutions are a compromise of one > kind or another, and they would all impose some kind of penalty - code size > or speed - on the NCG too, since we have to use the same ABI. If the > penalty can be shown to be negligible then it would be OK, but of course > then we argue about what negligible means. It seems particularly hard to > accept any penalty at all since we already have a solution (albeit an ugly > one) but which imposes no penalty or ABI changes.
It should be possible to implement the trick with the jump instruction first; it feels like it should be basically doable within a rather small time-frame. Then we may actually try to implement TNTC our way, do the comparisons, and try to convince the LLVM people to accept this other implementation (especially if this implementation is going to be simpler and clearer). In case they keep disagreeing, we will still have something working. Does this make any sense? Sergiu _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
