[haskell-llvm] Looking to transition maintainership of the llvm package(s)

[Nathan Howell]

Possibly, but I haven't given it any testing beyond what my internal
compiler tests cover. If a few people want to check it out and kick the
tires a bit that would help.

As for type-families vs fundeps (and type-level)... I'd vote to push off
any change until the type-nats branch is merged back into GHC HEAD,
probably post 7.8. If we're going to break compatibility in the eDSL it
might as well get the built-in solver at the same time. I have a branch for
this too (https://github.com/alphaHeavy/llvm/tree/gep-nats), though it
hasn't been tested on anything larger than ./examples.

-n


On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Henning Thielemann <
lemming at henning-thielemann.de> wrote:

>
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2013, Benjamin Saunders wrote:
>
>  Perhaps your work there would be a good basis for us to move forward
>> from? It seems to me that the biggest immediate challenge to us will be
>> reconciling all the forks, and if you've got that already well in hand, we
>> could save a lot of time.
>>
>
> It can become a lot of work. My switch to type families affected many type
> signatures. As far as I have seen, examples were broken in some of the llvm
> forks.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://projects.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-llvm/attachments/20130312/66d02008/attachment.htm>