Re: Status and future of the LLVM backend

Ben Gamari wrote: I've written down some thoughts on the current status and future direction of the LLVM backend here [1]. Have a look when you get a chance. To summarize, * it seems like LLVM 3.4 chokes on the code produced by my 3.5 rework when the `$def` symbols are marked as

Re: Status and future of the LLVM backend

Joachim Breitner m...@joachim-breitner.de writes: Hi, Am Samstag, den 06.12.2014, 16:19 +0100 schrieb Joachim Breitner: nevermind, I found https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/9552 and https://git.haskell.org/ghc.git/patch/2a8ea4745d6ff79d6ce17961a64d9013243fc3c6 and will try with

Re: Status and future of the LLVM backend

Hi, Am Montag, den 08.12.2014, 08:20 -0500 schrieb Ben Gamari: Again Google finds me a bug, but this time one that has no fix associated with it: https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8951 Ben, can you help me out here? I've been unable to reproduce this issue in my environment.

Re: Status and future of the LLVM backend

On 12/ 8/14 03:49 PM, Joachim Breitner wrote: So what does that tell us? Maybe Peter can help us: Is it normal for a Debian system to pretend that its a pre-v6 ARM, even if the actual hardware is not? Sorry to get into this, but are you using EABI[1] port of HardFloat[2] port? Wheezy claims

Re: Status and future of the LLVM backend

Hi, Am Montag, den 08.12.2014, 16:34 +0100 schrieb Karel Gardas: On 12/ 8/14 03:49 PM, Joachim Breitner wrote: So what does that tell us? Maybe Peter can help us: Is it normal for a Debian system to pretend that its a pre-v6 ARM, even if the actual hardware is not? Sorry to get into

Re: Status and future of the LLVM backend

On 12/ 8/14 04:44 PM, Joachim Breitner wrote: Hi, Am Montag, den 08.12.2014, 16:34 +0100 schrieb Karel Gardas: On 12/ 8/14 03:49 PM, Joachim Breitner wrote: So what does that tell us? Maybe Peter can help us: Is it normal for a Debian system to pretend that its a pre-v6 ARM, even if the

Re: Status and future of the LLVM backend

Joachim Breitner nome...@debian.org writes: Hi, Am Montag, den 08.12.2014, 08:20 -0500 schrieb Ben Gamari: Again Google finds me a bug, but this time one that has no fix associated with it: https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8951 Ben, can you help me out here? I've been

Re: Status and future of the LLVM backend

Joachim Breitner m...@joachim-breitner.de writes: Hi, Am Montag, den 08.12.2014, 16:34 +0100 schrieb Karel Gardas: On 12/ 8/14 03:49 PM, Joachim Breitner wrote: So what does that tell us? Maybe Peter can help us: Is it normal for a Debian system to pretend that its a pre-v6 ARM, even if

Re: Status and future of the LLVM backend

Hi, Am Freitag, den 05.12.2014, 20:25 +0100 schrieb Joachim Breitner: So, less elegantly, I’m now trying @@ -487,7 +487,7 @@ AC_DEFUN([FP_SETTINGS], fi fi SettingsCCompilerFlags=$CONF_CC_OPTS_STAGE2 -

Re: Status and future of the LLVM backend

Hi, Am Samstag, den 06.12.2014, 15:59 +0100 schrieb Joachim Breitner: any idea what might be causing this? I started the build from a fresh checkout. nevermind, I found https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/9552 and

Re: Status and future of the LLVM backend

Joachim Breitner m...@joachim-breitner.de writes: Hi, Am Samstag, den 06.12.2014, 15:59 +0100 schrieb Joachim Breitner: any idea what might be causing this? I started the build from a fresh checkout. nevermind, I found https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/9552 and

Re: Status and future of the LLVM backend

Hi, Am Donnerstag, den 04.12.2014, 23:37 +0100 schrieb Joachim Breitner: The problem is that in order to find out which linker is used, ghc calls /usr/bin/gcc -Wl,-version without passing the options from -optl, so the -fuse-ld=gold is not used in this step. I’m a bit confused, because

Re: Status and future of the LLVM backend

Hi, Am Montag, den 01.12.2014, 09:42 +0100 schrieb Joachim Breitner: Am Sonntag, den 30.11.2014, 18:49 -0500 schrieb Ben Gamari: Am Sonntag, den 30.11.2014, 16:48 -0500 schrieb Ben Gamari: What would be a reliable way to make the build system pass -B/usr/bin/ld.gold to gcc? Is

Re: Status and future of the LLVM backend

Joachim Breitner m...@joachim-breitner.de writes: Hi Ben, Am Freitag, den 28.11.2014, 18:27 -0500 schrieb Ben Gamari: I've written down some thoughts on the current status and future direction of the LLVM backend here [1]. thanks. I tried to build ghc-7.8.4-rc1 on Debian, and it failed on

Re: Status and future of the LLVM backend

[Resent, as ghc-dev does not like my other address. Sorry Ben] Hi, Am Sonntag, den 30.11.2014, 10:56 -0500 schrieb Ben Gamari: thanks. I tried to build ghc-7.8.4-rc1 on Debian, and it failed on arm*. First, because it picked llvm-3.5. After I tightened the dependencies to use llvm-3.4, it

Re: Status and future of the LLVM backend

Joachim Breitner m...@joachim-breitner.de writes: [Resent, as ghc-dev does not like my other address. Sorry Ben] Hi, Am Sonntag, den 30.11.2014, 10:56 -0500 schrieb Ben Gamari: thanks. I tried to build ghc-7.8.4-rc1 on Debian, and it failed on arm*. First, because it picked llvm-3.5.

Re: Status and future of the LLVM backend

Hi, Am Sonntag, den 30.11.2014, 16:48 -0500 schrieb Ben Gamari: I then followed your advice from somewhere else and passed --with-ld=ld.gold to ./configure, but with the same effect: Unfortunately I don't think this will be sufficient. I believe this will only set the `LD` variable

Re: Status and future of the LLVM backend

Joachim Breitner m...@joachim-breitner.de writes: Hi, Am Sonntag, den 30.11.2014, 16:48 -0500 schrieb Ben Gamari: What would be a reliable way to make the build system pass -B/usr/bin/ld.gold to gcc? Is SRC_HC_OPTS += -optc-B/usr/bin/ld.gold in mk/build.mk a good idea? Indeed

Status and future of the LLVM backend

I've written down some thoughts on the current status and future direction of the LLVM backend here [1]. Have a look when you get a chance. To summarize, * it seems like LLVM 3.4 chokes on the code produced by my 3.5 rework when the `$def` symbols are marked as internal * ARM is broken