On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Max Bolingbroke <batterseapo...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 27 August 2011 09:00, Evan Laforge <qdun...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Right, that's probably the one I mentioned. And I think he was trying >> to parallelize ghc internally, so even compiling one file could >> parallelize. That would be cool and all, but seems like a lot of work >> compared to just parallelizing at the file level, as make would do. > > It was Thomas Schilling, and he wasn't trying to parallelise the > compilation of a single file. He was just trying to make access to the > various bits of shared state GHC uses thread safe. This mostly worked > but caused an unacceptable performance penalty to single-threaded > compilation.
Interesting, maybe I misremembered? Or maybe there was some other guy who was trying to parallelize? Just out of curiosity, what benefit does a thread-safe ghc provide? I know ghc api users have go to some bother to not call re-entrantly... what neat stuff could we do with a re-entrant ghc? Could it eventually lead to an internally parallel ghc or are there deeper reasons it's hard to parallelize compilation? That would be really cool, if possible. In fact, I don't know of any parallel compilers. _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
