On 29/02/2012 12:06, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
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?
Seems reasonable, yes.
Cheers,
Simon
_______________________________________________
Cvs-ghc mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
