On Tuesday, 13 December 2016 at 07:21:07 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
Hi Guys, I just fixed the LLVM-Backend a little.
It's about 4000 times slower to start up then the interpreter.
And has 1000 microseconds overhead per evaluation.
If you don't want to run a raytracer at compiletime I doubt
that the llvm backend is the right one for you.
That said, it's a great fit for getting started in compiler
development.
It can also be used to show potential optimization our own
peephole optimizer could do.
The llvm backend will currently not run the whole test-suite
because it fails on ++ (because of a missing load-store cycle I
suspect)...
The strange thing here is, that it only fails sometimes :)
Do you use MCJIT or some special sauce made with Orc ?
Anyway, yes, LLVM's JIT is heavy duty, good for long running code
but probably not so much for CTFE which are mostly one shot.
