On Wed, 2004-06-02 at 16:14, scott west wrote: > >If you're after performance (rather than simply working), you'll need to > >wait for a registered build, or if you've got the assembler hacking > >skills you can help out. > > > I'm afraid of the few skills I have (walking, breathing, eating, etc), > working in assembler isn't one of them! And if I lower my standards (an > easy way to stay happy!) and just settle for a working, not > performance-oriented build, are my options basically porting it myself, > as per the instructions in the build-guide?
Someone mentioned they had an unregistered build working so you could see if that's available or if you can get sufficiently detailed instructions to do it yourself. As for a registered build see: http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/building/sec-porting-ghc.html You'd have to do it yourself or persuade/bully/pay someone else to do it. It may be beyond your assembler skill but it's not necessarily extremely hard: * You're not changing OS or linker format * the arch is 64 bit, but ghc has been ported to 64 bit archs before I believe (Sparc64?) * The cpu register layout is similar to x86 (though the calling convention / C ABI is slightly different) You're paying the price of being an early adopter :-). If any of the ghc developers had an AMD64, there'd probably be a registered build by now. Duncan _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users