I do wonder how Emscripten handles the GHC calling convention that is part of LLVM. In particular, global register declarations in the RTS scare me from a side line view, and LLVM's calling convention support is what makes the combination work at all in a registered environment. It's currently not even possible to compile code using global register variables to LLVM bitcode - it requires support everywhere from the frontend all the way to code generation. This is why LLVM uses a custom calling convention for GHC. The custom CC is also needed to make sure things like GC etc can work accurately - GC roots for example are always in predictable physical registers or somesuch.
The RTS will probably need to be heavily modified or flat-out re-implemented in JS for this to work, I'd think (similar to ghcjs.) It's possible to get GHC to generate code that does not use global register variables (normally used when compiling via C, use ack and search for 'NO_REGS' in the source. It's primarily for unregisterized builds.) The result is fairly POSIX-compliant code that could be compiled with, say, clang to produce bitcode. However, forcing NO_REGS across GHC will mean that certain STG 'registers' are instead mapped to stack locations, not real physical registers. So it changes the calling convention. The LLVM calling convention is currently only built to handle a registerized GHC from what I've seen, and upon entry to STG-land, it's going to expect that certain STG registers are pinned to physical machine registers. Result: disasterous CC mismatch. Of course, perhaps re-implementing the RTS in JS isn't a terrible, terrible idea. You could for example, swap out GHC's lightweight threading to use webworkers or somesuch. This would probably be a hell of a lot more difficult if you were compiling the real C RTS code into JS indirectly via LLVM. I don't know if Emscripten is the way to go for compiling Haskell to JS, but it does open up more possibilities. It's going to be a lot of work no matter how you approach it though - perhaps we need some interested team of people willing to do the research. (NB: I could be wrong on the LLVM note; David T. or one of the Simons would probably know more and be more qualified to answer.) On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Sönke Hahn <sh...@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote: > Hi all! > > I haven't tried the tool myself, but it seems interesting to the Haskell > efforts to compile to JavaScript: > > http://syntensity.blogspot.com/2011/04/emscripten-10.html > > Cheers, > Sönke > > > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > -- Regards, Austin _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
