search for: ghcs

I found this interesting: http://donsbot.wordpress.com/2010/02/21/smoking-fast-haskell-code-using-ghcs-new-llvm-codegen/

On 22 February 2010 19:43, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > I found this interesting: > http://donsbot.wordpress.com/2010/02/21/smoking-fast-haskell-code-using-ghcs-new-llvm-codegen/ David Terei sent it a few days ago too, as part of another thread. (which prevented me of sharing too) ;) It's really interesting how the optimizations scrambled the code to a point of non-recognition, but making it much faster. Are the generic optimizations (also) tailored...

...t that the LLVM-based implementation of the > language Concurrent Clean be any faster than its reference implementation? You should probably get in touch with David Terei. His LLVM ghc backend seems to be doing fairly well: http://donsbot.wordpress.com/2010/02/21/smoking-fast-haskell-code-using-ghcs-new-llvm-codegen/ Albert -- Dr. Albert Gr"af Dept. of Music-Informatics, University of Mainz, Germany Email: Dr.Graef at t-online.de, ag at muwiinfa.geschichte.uni-mainz.de WWW: http://www.musikinformatik.uni-mainz.de/ag

Hi, are there any attempts to use LLVM in graph-rewriting (term-rewriting) language implementations? How good is LLVM for this? E.g., is it natural to expect that the LLVM-based implementation of the language Concurrent Clean be any faster than its reference implementation? Best regards -- Valery A.Khamenya -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

On Feb 21, 2010, at 4:53 PM, Garrison Venn wrote: > Hi David, > > Your paper is linked on an LLVM site, but I can't give you the url as we are > currently down for maintenance. If I remember correctly it was under "recent papers" > off of the home site. It's here: http://llvm.org/pubs/2009-10-TereiThesis.html -Chris > > Garrison > > On Feb 21,

Hi David, Your paper is linked on an LLVM site, but I can't give you the url as we are currently down for maintenance. If I remember correctly it was under "recent papers" off of the home site. Garrison On Feb 21, 2010, at 18:55, David Terei wrote: > Just to correct, the GCC back-end isn't being depreciated in favour of > the LLVM back-end (as much as I would to claim