Think carefully first! Lots of people tried this in the 80's. To beat generic (but high-investment) microprocessors you need to find a factor or 10 or so improvement in the basic architecture, and that is hard to find. The STG machine is designed to be ok for stock hardware, but it's not specialised for stock hardware, so there's no reason it's a bad base for specialised hardware. No, Tcode is very old. We use some different byte-code for the GHCi byte code, but it is designed for easy compilation rather than fast execution. For fast execution we compile to native code, or to C, or (soon I hope) C--. Simon | -----Original Message----- | From: MR K P SCHUPKE [mailto:k.schupke@ic.ac.uk] | Sent: 21 August 2002 16:32 | To: glasgow-haskell-users | Subject: Hardware STG? | | | Hi, | I am looking into starting a project on special hardware to run | haskell - (or perhapse any | lazy functional hardware)... If I go ahead the project will | result in an | open VHDL implementation. I would like to ask a couple of questions. | | Is there any point in doing this as the STG-machine is | designed to | make running haskell | efficient on standard hardware? | | is TCode and the byte code used by GHCi the same? | | finally, does anyone know of any implementations that | have already | been attempted, | and how successful were they? Any general comments on how | worthwhile this might | be? | | Regards, | Keean Schupke | Department of Electrical & Electronic Engineering, | Imperial College London. | | | _______________________________________________ | Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list | Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org | http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-| haskell-users |