Greets, On Sat 17 Apr 2010 01:15, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> writes: > >> So, my thought is to extend procedures with an additional pointer, a >> pointer to a "native" code structure. > > (So your point is what should we do now to allow for such experiments > eventually, right?) > > Adding an extra work to programs seems like a good idea, yes. I'm not sure I have an immediate point ;) Also I don't think it's a good idea to reserve a word "just-in-case". Better to do this work on a future 2.2 branch. The word would probably go in the objcode structure, also; a 5-word procedure object has bad cache implications. >> Now, what technology to choose for the compiler itself? Dunno. For a >> JIT, it would be useful to use something portable, and perhaps do the >> JIT compilation on the bytecode itself, without more source information. >> It would not produce the fastest code, but it would run fast. > > Yes, that’s what I had in mind, using GNU lightning (see > <http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/software/guile/jit.html>.) It /seems/ to > be doable, with milestones to do it incrementally, starting from a dumb > version. Yes, I had your model in mind. I think it's generally a good idea, though I would like to be able to avoid trampolining. >> I think we can produce better native code ahead-of-time coming from the >> tree-il layer directly. I feel like eventually we'll need to replace >> GLIL with something else, but I don't really know; we'll find out in the >> future I guess. But I do want to do ahead-of-time compilation, because >> I want Guile programs to start up very quickly and not consume much >> memory. > > Sure. > > lightning does x86, x86_64, sparc, and powerpc (PLT uses it) while Sassy > does only x86, so it may be that both could play a role. > > Anyway, not for now. :-) Agreed :) Just wanted to reify these thoughts, as breadcrumbs for the future :) Andy -- http://wingolog.org/
