David Feuer <da...@well-typed.com> writes: > I started digging back into this today, particularly considering Simon PJ's > view > that it's a bit odd for optimization flags to imply -fobject-code > (specifically > because we could potentially support optimization for the bytecode > interpreter some day). I'm left even more lost about exactly what we want. > I believe it's fairly clear that, as Simon M wrote, > >> [W]e'll want at least -fignore-optim-changes to be the default, so that GHCi >> does the expected thing when you have compiled object files. > > Based on Simon PJ's comment, I believe we want to *continue* to discard > optimization flags when -fobject-code is not enabled. As for my suggestion in > (2), > I spent the last couple hours attempting to figure out what would be necessary > to allow :load *M to load a module interpreted even when using -fobject-code, > but found myself utterly lost in the module loading logic. I see that the > IIModule > constructor is deeply involved in this, but I haven't been able to figure out > where/how that interacts with -fobject-code to determine whether the module > will actually be loaded interpreted or compiled. Can someone give me a clue? > It seems to me like the place to start would be occurrences of the targetAllowObjCode field of Target.
Cheers, - Ben
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
