[m-dev.] hl.gc grade

[Fergus Henderson]

On 25-Feb-2003, Peter Ross <pro at missioncriticalit.com> wrote:
> Is there any reason why we are using hlc.gc in preference to the hl.gc
> grade?

Yes.  The hl.gc grade has basically the same problems with abstract
equivalence types as the .NET and Java back-ends.  Currently these
problems are solved for those back-ends using automatic intermodule
optimization, and the same would be needed for the hl.gc grade,
to avoid zillions of compiler warnings (from gcc) or errors (from
other C compilers).  This would significantly increase compilation times
and would also break some of the nice separate compilation properties
that the current implementation posses.

The hlc.gc grade, on the other hand, does not require automatic intermodule
optimization.  (Well, technically it does have a similar problem with
equivalence types defined as equivalent to `float', but that is rare
enough that we can get away with not supporting it unless the user
explicitly enables intermodule optimization manually.)

-- 
Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs.mu.oz.au>  |  "I have always known that the pursuit
The University of Melbourne         |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>  |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
mercury-developers mailing list
Post messages to:       mercury-developers at cs.mu.oz.au
Administrative Queries: owner-mercury-developers at cs.mu.oz.au
Subscriptions:          mercury-developers-request at cs.mu.oz.au
--------------------------------------------------------------------------