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 <mechvel@botik.ru> wrote:
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