Re: [C--] C-- development

On 03/13/2013 02:37 PM, Norman Ramsey wrote:
>
> My opinion of the C-- language and API is that we got a lot of things
> right.  The next generation of the run-time interface would have been
> better, and there are probably some notes kicking around about how to
> do that, but it's quite usable as it.
Is it possible to publish these notes?
>
> A possibility we overlooked was that people would want to use C-- to
> write a run-time system.  There needs to be a new dialect "Systems C--"
> to make that idea work well.  That project never got beyond casual
> conversation.
What are the benefits C-- can bring in?  I know GHC has some run-time 
systems written in C--.
> I'm not so sure about the compiler.  It would up being first and
> foremost a tool for doing compiler research.  It's a very good tool
> for that purpose, but there's a lot of abstraction and the compiler is
> hard to learn.  Also, the internal data structures are not as good as
> the refined versions that eventually went into GHC under the Hoopl
> badge.  On the other hand, none of the code-generation ideas got into
> GHC, so you picks your money and you takes your chances.
Yes, Hoopl is very nice. FYI, I have started a project to utilize Hoopl 
to optimize LLVM.  The source code is available at 
https://github.com/mlite/HsLlvm, and it can parse LLVM 3.1 and only very 
basic optimizations are implemented in the current release.

Another thought, moving the implementation to Haskell is a great 
decision. I was just amazed by the abstraction capability of Haskell.

Ning
_______________________________________________
Cminusminus mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.eecs.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/cminusminus