Hi David, Le 4 avr. 2011 à 00:05, David Chisnall a écrit :
> I've committed this code in Languages/ObjC2JS. It builds as a clang plugin, > which uses clang to generates an abstract syntax tree and then walks it > emitting JavaScript. I was wondering what's your take about the LLVM bitcode interpreter approach taken by the Emscripten project. See https://github.com/kripken/emscripten/wiki >From what I understand, there are more room for optimizations by emitting JS >code from the Clang AST. For example, C or ObjC loops constructs can be >remapped to JS loops, or ObjC message sends might be more easy to optimize >(e.g. by inserting type feedback optimizations written in JS). However this means that another code generator will have to be written to compile the LK languages to JS, when Emscripten would involve no extra code generator. Given that they claim there are a lot of rooms for optimizations in their approach (see https://github.com/kripken/emscripten/raw/8a6e2d67c156d9eaedf88b752be4d1cf4242e088/docs/paper.pdf), why did you choose to emit JS code from the Clang AST? Would message send optimizations be possible with Emscripten? Just harder than with your approach? Could your choice also be related that LLVM seems to lack some elements to build a VM that would interpret the LLVM bitcode? Especially when you consider the live optimizations (e.g. profiling and inlining method calls while running) that a Java VM supports? Cheers, Quentin. _______________________________________________ Etoile-dev mailing list Etoile-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/etoile-dev
