Hi Haael,
Cool that you want to work on PyPy!
haael wrote:
>>
>> Why would it reduce the size of the binary?
>
>
>That is my poor understanding, I might be wrong.
>
>In the current approach in a binary there is a compiled machine code,
>the flow
>graph representation and the JIT compiler. I t
Hi Haael,
Here is again a high-level overview. Although we use the term
"backend" for both, there are two completely unrelated components: the
JIT backends and the translation backends.
The translation backends are part of the static translation of a PyPy
(with or without the JIT) to C code. Th
2012/9/18 haael :
> OK, so where could I start from? Is there for example some list of flow
> graphs opcodes?
You can use the graphviewer described in the documentation.
> In the current approach in a binary there is a compiled machine code, the
> flow graph representation and the JIT compiler. I
2012/9/18 haael :
>> Most of the JIT code is not C-backend specific. Backends are along the
>> line of x86, arm, PPC. If you want to create a say LLVM backend, you
>> would reuse most of the JIT code.
>
>
> So I don't understand anything again. Where exactly JIT is coded? What is
> the difference b
3. Which component actually does the JIT? Is it just a tweak on the
code
generator or are the flow graphs generated differently?
The flow graphs are taken from the translator and modified by the JIT
generator.
My question is:
Does JIT involve another "transformation" of the flow graphs?
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:35 AM, haael wrote:
>
> 3. Which component actually does the JIT? Is it just a tweak on the
> code
> generator or are the flow graphs generated differently?
The flow graphs are taken from the translator and modified by the JIT
generato
3. Which component actually does the JIT? Is it just a tweak on the code
generator or are the flow graphs generated differently?
The flow graphs are taken from the translator and modified by the JIT
generator.
My question is:
Does JIT involve another "transformation" of the flow graphs? I
