llvm vs c-- ; how can llvm fundamentally not be better for haskell than c-- ?

views:

1191

answers:

+1 Q:

llvm vs c-- ; how can llvm fundamentally not be better for haskell than c-- ?

I've been excited about llvm being low enough to model any system, and saw it as promising that Apple was adopting it; but then again Apple doesn't specifically support Haskell;

and, some think that Haskell would be better off with c-- :

That LLVM'ers haven't solved the problem of zero-overhead garbage collection isn't too surprising . Solving this while staying agnostic of the data model is an open question in computer science.

-- LHC won't be using LLVM.

+2 A:

Well, there is a project at UNSW to translate GHC Core to LLVM

Remember: it wasn't clear 10 years ago that LLVM would build up all the infrastructure C-- wasn't able to. Unfortunately, LLVM has the infrastructure for portable, optimized code, but not the infrastructure for nice high level language support, that C-- ha(s)d.

An interesting project would be to target LLVM from C-- ...

Don Stewart 2009-05-03 00:54:57

. great answer;that was just the blindspot-undo I was looking for!. llvm'ers had a similar response to the lack of concurrency support:it's an add-on library thing .. c-- can be ported to llvm,meaning that llvm's gc simply won't be used .

dr.addn 2009-05-09 15:36:22

+4 A:

GHC now officially has an LLVM backend, and it turns out that it's competitive with the GCC and native-codegen and actually faster in some cases. And the LLVM project has accepted the new calling convention David Terei created for Haskell on LLVM, so amazingly, the two projects are actually working together now.

Chuck 2010-03-30 17:42:04

ansaurus

tags:

views:

answers:

llvm vs c-- ; how can llvm fundamentally not be better for haskell than c-- ?

related questions