On 27 June 2016 at 04:11, Edward Z. Yang <ezy...@mit.edu> wrote: > I don't understand what the bytecode format has to do here. Since > your suggestion is to just store Core you can just compile to object > code.
True, I could compile to either as long as I can link it dynamically. > > Any input into this? How far away is GHC's current architecture from > > supporting such a concept? > > Well, if you are going to support update you need to make sure that the > tag information is more elaborate than what GHC currently supports > (a type would just be a Name, which is going to get reused when you > recompile.) Indeed -- like in GHCi when you redefine a named thing, I'd hope to implement an incrementing Name[n] versioning for names. But Core's AST is trivial so it'd be easy to make this kind of transformation. _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
