Sure. 'Extend' was the wrong phrasing. I meant more that given the work gone into ARM support in GHC in the sense of the build system, RTS, cross compilation.. e.t.c, I'd be surprised if this didn't help porting to AArch64. Just human expertise we have now helps a huge amount. On 26 March 2013 01:31, Karel Gardas wrote:

Hi David,

AArch64 is completely new architecture so it's not about extending current ARM support but rather write a new beside it -- at least as a prototype, if there is a lot of synergies you can merge both together later, but I don't see it having a high chance. Well the situation with AArch64 and ARM is very similar to situation with i386 and amd64 support so you can get an idea what's the difference (extended registers set, extended registers width, extended NEON (the least important detail indeed), different calling convention, etc.)

Cheers, Karel

On 03/26/13 08:14 AM, David Terei wrote:

...

I don't believe so.

LLVM in head supports Arm64 so I imagine it wouldn't be too much work to extend our existing Arm support (also through LLVM) to work with Arm64. I'm not aware of any Arm64 hardware being available yet but someone could potentially start with a virtual image: http://www.linaro.org/engineering/armv8

On 25 March 2013 19:33, Jens Petersen wrote:

...

I am curious if anyone has started or is planning to work on porting GHC to the new ARM 64bit architecture AArch64 for Linux?

Jens

_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users

_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users