On Mon, 2010-04-26 at 11:24 +0300, Igor Stasenko wrote: > On 26 April 2010 10:57, Lukas Renggli <[email protected]> wrote: > > Igor, > > > > Looks cool, but I really would like to know the exact difference to Exupery? > > > > For what I understand NativeBoost is no different to Exupery's > > low-level code generation infrastructure. > > You are free to use any code generator you want. NativeBoost plugin is > really dumb and will run your code at your will. > I am using AsmJit, because its small and dumb too. Mainly its just an > x86/x64 instruction database with > some convenience class(es) and methods to generate instructions directly. > In contrast, Exupery is a full-blown compiler, but supports a very > small subset of x86 instructions. > Actually, i think that with some effort, an Exupery could use AsmJit as > backend. > Not sure, if Bryce likes this idea :) >
It sounds like NativeBoost is rather similar to Exupery's lower levels. Exupery can replace individual methods with native code. Exupery's design supports the easy removal of all native code which is necessary when saving the image if it might be loaded on a platform or by a VM which can not run x86 machine code. The VM hooks are rather small and the code generator is reasonably small and simple. Exploring multiple approaches may be more valuable than saving a small amount of duplicate effort. Bryce _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
