Peter Verswyvelen wrote:
> Well, I don't know about the licensing, but according to
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Compiler_Collection#Front_ends, a new
> cleaner intermediate language was created in 2005 for GCC, which might be
> more "general"?
It's still very difficult to work with GCC fro
Neil Mitchell wrote:
> GCC is optimised for dealing with code that comes from C, and the back
> end language is much like C. GCC is also not really set up to be used
> by bolting different front ends on to different back ends - part of
> this is a license issue - if the front and back ends were wel
Peter Verswyvelen wrote:
...
I was wondering, why doesn't GHC use the GCC (or any other standard
compiler) backend intermediate code? The backend of GCC generates highly
optimized code no? Or is the intermediate code format of GCC (or other
compilers) not suitable for Haskell?
...
My guess is
Hi
> If I understand it correctly, the GHC compiler either directly generates
> machinecode, or it uses C as an intermediate language.
>
> I also read somewhere that C is not the most efficient intermediate
> representation for functional languages, and that one gets better
> performance when ge
If I understand it correctly, the GHC compiler either directly generates
machinecode, or it uses C as an intermediate language.
I also read somewhere that C is not the most efficient intermediate
representation for functional languages, and that one gets better
performance when generating nati
