-1 to separating Jitrino.JET and Jitrino.OPT. As Mikhail and Alex said, JET and OPT share their code in many areas. So, to achieve true modularity separating them we'll need either to duplicate shared code or "externalize" internal JIT interfaces. The former is definitely bad and the latter implies introducing some public JIT-JIT interface and putting the shared code top-level as well. This shared code actually might not be necessary for other JIT implementations. So I'd leave Jitrino dir as a home for the Jitrino family. Any new JIT implementation which won't re-use internal Jitrino code may go to the top-level dir.
Thank you, Pavel On 11/7/06, Xiao-Feng Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Agreed. Without the explanation of JET as only a fast path, I also thought JET and OPT are two different JITs. And actually as I can recall, JET and OPT are indeed treated as two different JITs that the EM can select in the JITs chain. Honestly, "different paths" give me an impression that they are different JITs, unless they share many common compilation steps (passes). If they start from different IR and end in different emitter, it would be hard to convince people they are only different paths of the same JIT. But anyway, this is only my observation. JIT developers decide how to modularize JIT. Thanks, xiaofeng On 11/7/06, Pavel Pervov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Jet is a startup fast compilation path, not a seperate pluggable jit. So, > > while modularity and seperation are important requirements, they may not > > be > > needed here. > > > JET can work standalone (-Xem:jet specified), OPT can work standalone > (-Xem:opt), so from "outside" POV they are independent. Also, correct me if > I'm wrong, OPT does not reuse the results of JET compilation when > recompiling methods - it has its own completely independent pipeline. > > We have lots of GCs now but we only have one JIT although modularity concept > of DRLVM allows to create different JITs. > > Also, Mikhail and Alex are the best people to decide on this.They are > > literally the two people who know this code best :-) > > > Sure they are. That's why I've asked. They both have opposite POVs though. > > -- > Pavel Pervov, > Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division > >
