On 8 September 2016 at 19:40, Jan Brohl <janbr...@t-online.de> wrote:
> Is it possible to build different interpreters like Stackless, IronPython > or Jython? > That was actually the original motivation for creating pypy - maintaining all those different python implementations was a lot of unnecessary work. Stackless support is enabled by default. Support for translating to CLI and the JVM was eventually dropped for lack of interest. If someone wanted to re-add that support, they could learn from the mistakes that the previous implementation used. http://doc.pypy.org/en/latest/stackless.html > > If not - why? > > If yes - is it (in theory) possible to gain a speedup on those without > GIL? (Is there multithreading at all the in translation process?) > Translation can't be done concurrently at the moment. I probably should have expanded upon this in my previous email, and maybe I will; there are a number of global structures, registries, and work lists that would need to be refactored before the translation work could be distributed. If that's the route the pypy team go, we will consider it after pypy itself supports parallelism. There's another route, which is to support separate compilation, and then to hand off the translation of built-in modules to different executors. This is itself quite a bit of work due to some inherent properties of rpython. -- William Leslie Notice: Likely much of this email is, by the nature of copyright, covered under copyright law. You absolutely MAY reproduce any part of it in accordance with the copyright law of the nation you are reading this in. Any attempt to DENY YOU THOSE RIGHTS would be illegal without prior contractual agreement.
_______________________________________________ pypy-dev mailing list pypy-dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
