On 9/16/13, Carter Schonwald <[email protected]> wrote: > yup! its exciting. > > we were talking about this a bit earlier today on #haskell-llvm, and it > sounds doable. > There were some concerns that folks had, but hopefully we can give the llvm > devs feedback about this before its finalized in LLVM 3.4 so it doesn't > come with any performance caveats for ghc.
I almost sobered when I read that there must be a machine instruction embedded in the prefix, but looking at the testcases this doesn't appear like being mandatory. The prefix can be a simple struct, just like TNTC. > > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Gabor Greif <[email protected]> wrote: > >> This looks pretty exiting for LLVM IR-generation: >> >> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20130909/188042.html >> >> GHC 7.10 might generate LLVM IR including embedded tables without >> resorting to linker tricks/postprocessing when targeting LLVM 3.4! >> >> The relevant LLVM bug is http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14080 >> >> and GHC Trac: http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/4213 >> >> Cheers, >> >> Gabor >> _______________________________________________ >> ghc-devs mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs >> > _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
