On 09 March 2005 10:14, Ralf Hinze wrote:
> this is just to let you know that I successfully compiled the lastest
> snapshot (ghc-6.4.20050308). Initial tests look promising. Thanks!
>
> Cheers, Ralf
>
> PS: Just curious: is the gcc route easier than the NCG? To me it seems
> much more fragile.
Hi Simon,
this is just to let you know that I successfully compiled the lastest
snapshot (ghc-6.4.20050308). Initial tests look promising. Thanks!
Cheers, Ralf
PS: Just curious: is the gcc route easier than the NCG? To me it seems
much more fragile.
__
Simon Marlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Hi Simon!
> I've put up an x86_64/Linux registerised build for testing here:
Thank you very much.
> This is a binary distribution: ./configure && make -k install. The -k
> is necessary because it doesn't have all the docs. It was built on
> Fedora FC3.
On 08 March 2005 15:59, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 15:16 +, Simon Marlow wrote:
>> I've put up an x86_64/Linux registerised build for testing here:
>>
>>
>>
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/dist/stable/dist/ghc-6.4-x86_64-unknown-linux
>> .tar.bz2
>>
>> This is a binary distrib
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 15:16 +, Simon Marlow wrote:
> I've put up an x86_64/Linux registerised build for testing here:
>
>
> http://www.haskell.org/ghc/dist/stable/dist/ghc-6.4-x86_64-unknown-linux
> .tar.bz2
>
> This is a binary distribution: ./configure && make -k install. The -k
> is nec
I've put up an x86_64/Linux registerised build for testing here:
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/dist/stable/dist/ghc-6.4-x86_64-unknown-linux
.tar.bz2
This is a binary distribution: ./configure && make -k install. The -k
is necessary because it doesn't have all the docs. It was built on
Fedora F
On 07 March 2005 18:01, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 11:47:31AM -, Simon Marlow wrote:
>>
>> $ cat bug.c
>> register void * R1 __asm__("%r13");
>>
>> extern void g(void);
>> static void f(void) {
>> R1 = g;
>> goto *R1;
>> }
>> $ gcc -S -O bug.c
>> $
>>
>> And take a look
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 07:01:16PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Also, it should be a "movq $g, %rax" instead of movl.
The default x86_64 model on gcc is -mcmodel=small, which assumes that all
symbols are within the first 2GB. If you compile it with -mcmodel=medium
it'll generate:
movabsq $g,
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 09:15:01AM -0800, David Brown wrote:
>
> gcc 3.3.4 on AMD64 appears to generate correct code when the dummy call is
> present. Ick.
It generates the following code here:
subq$8, %rsp
movl$g, %r13d
movl$0, %eax
calldummy
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 11:47:31AM -, Simon Marlow wrote:
>
> $ cat bug.c
> register void * R1 __asm__("%r13");
>
> extern void g(void);
> static void f(void) {
> R1 = g;
> goto *R1;
> }
> $ gcc -S -O bug.c
> $
>
> And take a look at the generated assembly for the function f:
>
> f:
>
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> David Brown
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 04:59:38PM -, Simon Marlow wrote:
>
> > The mystery as to why this doesn't affect us on x86 is solved: on x86 we
> > generate slightly different C code, including a dummy function call:
> >
> > ex
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 04:59:38PM -, Simon Marlow wrote:
> The mystery as to why this doesn't affect us on x86 is solved: on x86 we
> generate slightly different C code, including a dummy function call:
>
> extern void g(void);
> static void f(void) {
> R1 = g;
> dummy();
> goto *R1;
>
On 07 March 2005 16:40, Simon Marlow wrote:
> On 07 March 2005 16:18, David Brown wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 11:47:31AM -, Simon Marlow wrote:
>>
>>> $ cat bug.c
>>> register void * R1 __asm__("%r13");
>>>
>>> extern void g(void);
>>> static void f(void) {
>>> R1 = g;
>>> goto *R
On 07 March 2005 16:18, David Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 11:47:31AM -, Simon Marlow wrote:
>
>> $ cat bug.c
>> register void * R1 __asm__("%r13");
>>
>> extern void g(void);
>> static void f(void) {
>> R1 = g;
>> goto *R1;
>> }
>> $ gcc -S -O bug.c
>> $
>>
>> And take a look a
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 11:47:31AM -, Simon Marlow wrote:
> $ cat bug.c
> register void * R1 __asm__("%r13");
>
> extern void g(void);
> static void f(void) {
> R1 = g;
> goto *R1;
> }
> $ gcc -S -O bug.c
> $
>
> And take a look at the generated assembly for the function f:
>
> f:
> .
On 04 March 2005 22:54, Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
> simonmar:
>> On 04 March 2005 16:59, John Goerzen wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 04:57:04PM -, Simon Marlow wrote:
On 04 March 2005 14:04, John Goerzen wrote:
>> My amd64 hardware arrived yesterday, shouldn't be too long be
On 04 March 2005 17:32, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> I have no idea what ghc has too do with gcc,
A bit of background: GHC uses gcc as a backend compiler. GHC generates
C code that is compiled using gcc (we also have a native code generator
for some platforms; but not for x86_64 yet).
> or what the pro
On 04 March 2005 17:48, Wolfgang Thaller wrote:
> On 4-Mar-05, at 11:57 AM, Simon Marlow wrote:
>
>> Don't hold your breath, I have some bad news. It seems that gcc is
>> still generating incorrect code for register variables (or maybe it's
>> broken again?).
>
> So maybe this will be the first
000
> To: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
> Subject: RE: x86_64 port
>
> On 04 March 2005 16:59, John Goerzen wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 04:57:04PM -, Simon Marlow wrote:
> >> On 04 March 2005 14:04, John Go
simonmar:
> On 04 March 2005 16:59, John Goerzen wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 04:57:04PM -, Simon Marlow wrote:
> >> On 04 March 2005 14:04, John Goerzen wrote:
> My amd64 hardware arrived yesterday, shouldn't be too long before
> we have a registerised port of GHC, and possi
On 4-Mar-05, at 11:57 AM, Simon Marlow wrote:
Don't hold your breath, I have some bad news. It seems that gcc is
still generating incorrect code for register variables (or maybe it's
broken again?).
So maybe this will be the first NCG-only port of GHC :-).
Death to the Mangler!
Cheers,
Wolfgang
__
On 04 March 2005 16:59, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 04:57:04PM -, Simon Marlow wrote:
>> On 04 March 2005 14:04, John Goerzen wrote:
My amd64 hardware arrived yesterday, shouldn't be too long before
we have a registerised port of GHC, and possibly a native code
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 04:57:04PM -, Simon Marlow wrote:
> On 04 March 2005 14:04, John Goerzen wrote:
> >> My amd64 hardware arrived yesterday, shouldn't be too long before we
> >> have a registerised port of GHC, and possibly a native code
> >> generator...
> >
> > excellent
>
> Don't h
On 04 March 2005 14:04, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 09:38:47AM -, Simon Marlow wrote:
>>> Even if you're not running Debian, there are tools available to
>>> convert a .deb to a RPM or tgz package. Or, you can easily unpack a
>>> deb using only ar(1) and tar(1).
>>
>> My am
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 09:38:47AM -, Simon Marlow wrote:
> > Even if you're not running Debian, there are tools available to
> > convert a .deb to a RPM or tgz package. Or, you can easily unpack a
> > deb using only ar(1) and tar(1).
>
> My amd64 hardware arrived yesterday, shouldn't be too
> My amd64 hardware arrived yesterday, shouldn't be too long before we
> have a registerised port of GHC, and possibly a native code generator...
That would be great! I just assembled an amd64 box and I am mssing ghci
badly. Let me know if I can be of any help (testing ..).
Cheers, Ralf
_
Simon Marlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> My amd64 hardware arrived yesterday, shouldn't be too long before we
> have a registerised port of GHC, and possibly a native code generator...
:-
As soon as you have some pre-alpha release, I'm ready to test ;)
Sincerely,
Gour
--
Registered Linux
On 02 March 2005 14:15, John Goerzen wrote:
> Kip Macy gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I've followed the instructions to the letter.
>
> Debian has had a working amd64 package of ghc for some time now. It
> is built out of the standard source base for it. You can find that
> at:
>
> http://ftp.debi
Kip Macy gmail.com> writes:
> I've followed the instructions to the letter.
Debian has had a working amd64 package of ghc for some time now. It is built
out of the standard source base for it. You can find that at:
http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/g/ghc6
You'll want to grab the orig.ta
> Much of this is done already. Simon Marlow's done the register mapping
> (ghc/includes/MachRegs.h) and done other registerisation work. There
> was a bug in gcc-3.3x that halted things for a while, but this has been
> fixed in 6.4
All the files mentioned except for the Adjustor appear to have x8
kip.macy:
> > number of platforms). The registerised port is being held up as none of
> > the developers have regular access to such a machine.
>
> I'm new to Haskell but not to assembler - is the work required
> something that someone in my position could contribute to?
Certainly. Not much Haske
> number of platforms). The registerised port is being held up as none of
> the developers have regular access to such a machine.
I'm new to Haskell but not to assembler - is the work required
something that someone in my position could contribute to?
__
kip.macy:
> Sorry if this is a RTFM type question - but what is the status of the
> x86_64 port?
As it says on
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/building/sec-port-info.html
it currently works unregisterised (and is available in binary form on a
number of platforms). The regist
Sorry if this is a RTFM type question - but what is the status of the
x86_64 port?
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
34 matches
Mail list logo
