In my experience Hadrian is kind of confusing and simply lacks a _lot_ of polish. I think its an impediment to new contributors. I've started working on it (e.g. https://github.com/ndmitchell/shake/pull/862), but I wouldn't be sad if its replaced by something else. In particular I would hope that if we adopt buck2 or some other build system that is more to your liking, Simon, you might also tend to it a bit, and bring it to level of usability that is above what we have now with Hadrian. Would that be a realistic expectation? Am Mo., 19. Okt. 2026 um 16:07 Uhr schrieb Simon Marlow via ghc-devs <ghc-devs@haskell.org>:
As I mentioned to a few people recently, I wanted to explore replacing Hadrian with Buck2. I've got a prototype to the point where it can build the stage2 compiler and all the libraries on Linux:
buck2 run :stage2-ghc -- --interactive GHCi, version 10.1.20261017: https://www.haskell.org/ghc/ :? for help Using default language edition: GHC2024 ghci> 1+2 3 ghci>
This includes dynamic/static, all the RTS ways and profiling is allegedly working although I haven't tested it very much.
It's a LOT smaller than Hadrian - hard to say exactly how much because some of the code is in the shared projects cabal-buck2 and haskell-buck2, but there's about 1400 lines of Buck2 stuff in the ghc repo and nothing in the library submodules.
I've written up the design along with some notes on how to set it up and try it over here: https://github.com/simonmar/ghc/blob/buck2/README.buck2.md
Keen to hear what people think about this. Are there key metrics that we should measure to understand whether it's better than Hadrian? What are the workflow aspects that people find slow currently?
Cheers Simon _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list -- ghc-devs@haskell.org To unsubscribe send an email to ghc-devs-leave@haskell.org