Alessandro Vernet writes:
>
> By the way, do you know if the quality of the resulting executable
> is better (faster, smaller, stingier) when using the native code
> generator or when using the C code generator?
>
One of the main motivations for adding the native code generator(NCG)
backends w
Alex Ferguson wrote:
> Note that at least if my 2.08 experience is to be relied on, the -fviaC
> option is only necessary for one "problem" module. The rest of the
> build goes OK with the native code generator.
Yes, I had a problem with only one module compiling GHC 2.08 with GHC
0.29, However,
Alessandro Vernet:
> Yes, I have a binary distribution of GHC 2.09 for Digital UNIX. I first
> compiled GHC 2.09 with GHC 0.29 using the -fviaC option (thanks Sigbjorn
> Finne for the advice).
Note that at least if my 2.08 experience is to be relied on, the -fviaC
option is only necessary for on
Byron Cook wrote:
> does anyone have binary distribution of ghc-2.09 for the Alpha/Digital
> UNIX?
Yes, I have a binary distribution of GHC 2.09 for Digital UNIX. I first
compiled GHC 2.09 with GHC 0.29 using the -fviaC option (thanks Sigbjorn
Finne for the advice). Then I recompiled GHC 2.09 wi
Byron Cook:
> does anyone have binary distribution of ghc-2.09 for the Alpha/Digital
> UNIX?
>
> I'm trying to help someone else via email, he's having a bad ghc
> experience.
I have a build of 2.0_8_ on an Alpha, but no 2.09 currently. It went
fairly smoothly for me, though, so I'm help to
Hi,
does anyone have binary distribution of ghc-2.09 for the Alpha/Digital
UNIX?
I'm trying to help someone else via email, he's having a bad ghc
experience.
byron
