On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 12:03:51AM +, Tom Hughes wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To run a program with the JIT, pass test_parrot the -j flag and watch it
scream. Well, scream if you're on x86 Linux or BSD (I get a speedup on
On Mon, Dec 24, Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
Nicholas --
Parrot_set_i_i(in,out): \x8b \x0d IR2 \x89 \x0d IR1
I'm tempted to push the specification of this information all the way
back to the syntax of .ops files, since the code that lives there
should behave the same wrt read/write on args.
On Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 02:11:15PM -0500, Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
Or, do we really need to have the three-way in/out/inout tagset?
inline op set(out i, in i|ic) {
$1 = $2;
}
Making the distinction between the three cases enables a number of
optimizations of native code based on
Jason --
Making the distinction between the three cases enables a number of
optimizations of native code based on analysing data flow. 'in' would be good
as an implicit default, as many PMC opcodes will not overwrite any PMC
registers.
An optimizing native code generator (whether static
On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 12:03:51AM +, Tom Hughes wrote:
It looks like it is going to need some work before it can work for
other instruction sets though, at least for RISC systems where the
operands are typically encoded with the opcode as part of a single
word and the range of immediate
I think we should leave all that for an optimizer.
Daniel Grunblatt.
On Mon, 24 Dec 2001, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 12:03:51AM +, Tom Hughes wrote:
It looks like it is going to need some work before it can work for
other instruction sets though, at least for RISC
Oh, and by the BTW,
I already tried you fastest example last week and got 50x speed up, but
that's works only for mops, so ...
Daniel Grunblatt.
On Mon, 24 Dec 2001, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 12:03:51AM +, Tom Hughes wrote:
It looks like it is going to need some
On Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 03:19:39PM -0300, Daniel Grunblatt wrote:
I think we should leave all that for an optimizer.
I agree with that
Sorry, my point wasn't clear:
I believe the current JIT description syntax precludes making a good optimiser.
By making all ops pass by reference, with no
Nicholas --
Parrot_set_i_i(in,out): \x8b \x0d IR2 \x89 \x0d IR1
I'm tempted to push the specification of this information all the way
back to the syntax of .ops files, since the code that lives there
should behave the same wrt read/write on args.
Dan likes C-like syntax as much as possible in
Gregor N. Purdy:
# Parrot_set_i_i(in,out): \x8b \x0d IR2 \x89 \x0d IR1
#
# I'm tempted to push the specification of this information all the way
# back to the syntax of .ops files, since the code that lives there
# should behave the same wrt read/write on args.
#
# Dan likes C-like syntax as
Dan and Michael --
$ ./test_parrot -j examples/assembly/mops.pbc
Illegal instruction
That's not supposed to happen is it? Its Linux/PowerPC, so maybe it
is supposed to happen.
It's sort of supposed to happen. It shouldn't work, at least--we need
better error checking and such,
All --
$ ./test_parrot -j examples/assembly/mops.pbc
Illegal instruction
That's not supposed to happen is it? Its Linux/PowerPC, so maybe it
is supposed to happen.
It's sort of supposed to happen. It shouldn't work, at least--we need
better error checking and such, so
On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, Tom Hughes wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To run a program with the JIT, pass test_parrot the -j flag and watch it
scream. Well, scream if you're on x86 Linux or BSD (I get a speedup on
mops.pbc of 35x) but it's
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Daniel Grunblatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, Tom Hughes wrote:
I suspect it is also rather questionable to call system calls
directly rather than going via their C library veneers - that is
even more true when you come to things
Don't forget that (if I'm missing somthing) by the time that pbc2c.pl
work with all the ops it will be much slower than the jit.
Daniel Grunblatt.
On 21 Dec 2001, Tom Hughes wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Daniel Grunblatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, Tom
15 matches
Mail list logo
