Also Ning Wang and Andreas Voellmy have taken over maintainership of Hoopl, so
they would be good people to talk to.
Simon
From: ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Michal
Terepeta
Sent: 02 May 2015 14:21
To: ghc-devs@haskell.org
Subject: Hoopl question
Hi,
I've just
@haskell.org
Subject: Hoopl question
Hi,
I've just read through the Hoopl paper and then noticed
https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Commentary/Compiler/HooplPerformance
which is really interesting. But it seems that there were no updates to the
page in like 3 years, yet the new codegen
Wang
| Subject: Re: Hoopl question
|
| Also Ning Wang and Andreas Voellmy have taken over maintainership of
| Hoopl
| Sadly, this is not what Hackage says.
|
| Janek
|
| ,
| so they would be good people to talk to.
|
| Simon
|
| From: ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-boun
On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 7:39 PM Jan Stolarek jan.stola...@p.lodz.pl
wrote:
Michał,
one of my students is currently working on this:
https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Hoopl/Cleanup
as his BSc thesis (see #8315). It might turn out that he will also have
enough time to focus on
Which reminds me about another question I had -- the main reason to have
the specialized module in GHC (instead of relying on the Hoopl one) is
performance,
right?
Yes. If you're interested you might look at ghc-devs archives from July and
August 2013 - I was
doing MSR internship at that
Michał,
one of my students is currently working on this:
https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Hoopl/Cleanup
as his BSc thesis (see #8315). It might turn out that he will also have enough
time to focus on
performance issues in Hoopl but at this point it is hard to tell.
Janek
Dnia sobota, 2
Hi,
I've just read through the Hoopl paper and then noticed
https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Commentary/Compiler/HooplPerformance
which is really interesting. But it seems that there were no updates to the
page
in like 3 years, yet the new codegen seems to be using Hoopl... Does anyone
know
One possibility is to do this transformation once and for all, *before* the
constant-prop pass,
since it is not dependent on the facts generated by the pass.
Yes, that was Geoffrey's suggestion as well. I'll do that once I fix some
remaining issues in copy propagation.
Janek
| So why are Hoopl's rewrite functions specialized to UniqSM monad? My
| understanding so far was that this is precisely because we need access to
Uniq
| supply to generate new labels and registers during rewriting. I'm guessing
that
| nobody intended that these newly generated things will
I have yet another Hoopl question. One of my rewrites allocates a new unique
local register and this register is later added as a fact. So I have Cmm code
that looks like this:
I32[(old + 4)] = complicated_expr
which is rewritten to:
newReg1 = complicated_expr
I32[(old + 4)] = newReg1
On 13/08/13 13:03, Jan Stolarek wrote:
I have yet another Hoopl question. One of my rewrites allocates a new unique
local register and this register is later added as a fact. So I have Cmm code
that looks like this:
I32[(old + 4)] = complicated_expr
which is rewritten to:
newReg1
Forgive me for asking the classic question: What are you really trying to do?
Edward
Excerpts from Simon Marlow's message of Tue Aug 13 09:25:51 -0400 2013:
On 13/08/13 13:03, Jan Stolarek wrote:
I have yet another Hoopl question. One of my rewrites allocates a new
unique local register
The next question is well how do I do this then?. I'm not quite sure,
maybe you need to use a deterministic name supply monad.
So why are Hoopl's rewrite functions specialized to UniqSM monad? My
understanding so far was that this is precisely because we need access to Uniq
supply to
13 matches
Mail list logo
