GHC code still depends on RTS code (written in C by the way) which has to
be ported to a specific platform first. Native code generator offers
'registered' and 'unregistered' builds. The first are aware of specific
register layout of a architecture. You can find more rationale why it has
been removed somewhere on GHC wiki or mailing lists.
I think you might be interested in JHC: http://repetae.net/computer/jhc/
By design it compiles Haskell code to efficient C code which is quite easy
to read and hack further. Cross compilation is supported and easy too. The
compiler is somewhat experimental but can handle quite a few programs.
Best regards,
Krzysztof Skrzętnicki
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 19:48, Serge D. Mechveliani
Dear GHC team,
I cannot understand why do you remove the C stage in GHC. To my mind: let the result be 3 times slower, but preserve the C code. Because it works everyhere, and there is no real need to rewrite the same program separately for all the existing processors (which number may become, for example, 11000). I am naive, and am not a specialist. But only an invariant program ever has sense.
Has the modern GHC a sensible compilation result level to be observed (documented?) (graph rewriting code, or like this) ?
Regards,
------ Sergei mechvel@botik.ru
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users