Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
Deborah Goldsmith:
Has there been any thought about working with the LLVM project? I
didn't find anything on the wiki along those lines.
I have only had a rather brief look at LLVM, but my understanding at the
moment is that LLVM would not be able to support one
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 01:31:55PM +1000, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
This makes me wonder, though. Wouldn't this model make more sense for
Cabal in general than the current approach of duplicating the
functionality of autoconf, make and other stuff? If it works ghc, it
ought to work for
John Meacham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(bring back hmake! :) ).
It never went away...
http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/fp/hmake
I even have the idea to allow hmake to read the .cabal file format for
configuration data (although that is waiting for a delivery of round
On Wed, 2008-08-27 at 03:04 -0700, John Meacham wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 01:31:55PM +1000, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
This makes me wonder, though. Wouldn't this model make more sense for
Cabal in general than the current approach of duplicating the
functionality of autoconf, make
| I think we're all rather excited about seeing this stuff land.
| What's the expected timeline, wrt. ghc 6.10's release?
Good question. I've updated the overview here
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Commentary/Compiler/NewCodeGen
to say what we plan.
Simon
The problem with the way cabal wants to mix with make/autoconf is that
it is the wrong way round. make is very good at managing pre-processors,
dependency tracking and calling external programs in the right order, in
parallel, and as needed. cabal is generally good at building a single
library or
Wow, lots of great information. We'll take a look at the papers and get back if
there's any remaining confusion. Thanks!
Chad
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
On Wed, 2008-08-27 at 06:13 -0700, John Meacham wrote:
The problem with the way cabal wants to mix with make/autoconf is that
it is the wrong way round. make is very good at managing pre-processors,
dependency tracking and calling external programs in the right order, in
parallel, and as
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 10:18:59PM +0100, Duncan Coutts wrote:
On Wed, 2008-08-27 at 06:13 -0700, John Meacham wrote:
The problem with the way cabal wants to mix with make/autoconf is that
it is the wrong way round. make is very good at managing pre-processors,
dependency tracking and
