On 10/11/14 15:58, Austin Seipp wrote: > - 2) I am kind of not a fan of having separate 'plugins for > core2core' and 'plugins for typechecking' flags, AKA -ftc-plugin and > -fplugin. Ideally I would think all plugins could be uniformly > specified by simply saying '-fplugin'. This mostly avoids the need for > duplication and a naming convention/slew of flags for each case (which > we have to catalog and document). There may be an easy way to make > this the case; I haven't looked closely yet (it has been some time > since I starred at the plugin code, even though Max wrote it and I > helped get it merged!)
FWIW, I originally envisaged reusing the existing plugins machinery, and I don't think there are any great problems in doing so (see https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Plugins/TypeChecker). In fact, I had an early implementation of typechecker plugins that did exactly this. I have been wondering, however, about another possible approach. We could: 1. make the constraint solver changes use a *hook*, instead of the plugins directly, and 2. make it possible for plugins to install/modify hooks at some suitable point in the compilation pipeline. I don't know the hooks machinery very well, but if this is feasible it seems like it would provide more power (plugins could modify any part of GHC for which a hook is available) and avoid having multiple overlapping ways of extending GHC. In the future, I can imagine wanting plugins to hook into other parts of GHC (e.g. error message postprocessing for domain-specific error reporting), and this seems like a good way to achieve that. Adam > On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 6:17 PM, Iavor Diatchki <iavor.diatc...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I just finished merging HEAD into the branch implementing constraint solver >> plugins (`wip/tc-plugins`), so things should be fully up to date. For ease >> of review, I squashed everything into a single commit: >> >> https://github.com/ghc/ghc/commit/31729d092c813edc4ef5682db2ee18b33aea6911 >> >> could interested folks (I know of SimonPJ, Richard, and Adam) have a look >> and let me know if things look reasonable? >> >> On a related note: I know that we are using phabricator for code review, >> but I don't know how to use it yet, so please let me know if I can do >> something to make the review easier. >> >> -Iavor -- Adam Gundry, Haskell Consultant Well-Typed LLP, http://www.well-typed.com/ _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
