Austin Seipp <austin <at> well-typed.com> writes: > As far as I'm aware, Dynamic-by-default GHC is actually broken, and I > don't know for how long this has been the case. > > For some history: originally when all this was being decided to try > and fix the linker issues in GHC, dynamic by default was considered an > option, but was rejected in favor of DynamicGhcPrograms. Why was it > rejected? Well, dynamic by default particularly hurts 32bit x86, which > suffers from a very pathetic set of registers, and dynamic programs > steal one of these for the GOT (%ebx IIRC). > > On the other hand, DynamicGhcPrograms instead means GHC builds > everything statically, *except itself*, which it builds as a > dynamically linked executable. The idea is you dynamically link GHC > itself to fix linker issues, and end-user programs remain static, > which is the expected mode of operation.
Thank you for the detailed explanation (although I still don't understand why DYNAMIC_BY_DEFAULT by default wasn't kept for x64.) Where does GhcDynamic fit into this? _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users