[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: State of JIT compiler
|
From: |
John Swensen |
|
Subject: |
Re: State of JIT compiler |
|
Date: |
Thu, 24 Feb 2011 19:23:34 -0500 |
On Feb 24, 2011, at 6:03 PM, Judd Storrs wrote:
> Again a lot of this is hand waving and speculation on both sides because we
> don't have a profiler. I wouldn't make a final decision on whether JIT was
> useful based solely on a hunch. Besides, a clever JIT doen't only have to be
> about reducing execution time, it could also optimize memory use through
> transparent chunking and auto-inlining.
>
I am by no means a compiler expert, but from what I understand, this is one
reason why an LLVM JIT implementation would by favorable. I am pretty sure
that the LLVM VM can do a lot of these things for you if the Octave code is
translated to the VM bytecode.
John Swensen
- Re: State of JIT compiler, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso, 2011/02/22
- Re: State of JIT compiler, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso, 2011/02/22
- Bls: State of JIT compiler, Mario Ray Mahardhika, 2011/02/23
- Re: State of JIT compiler, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso, 2011/02/23
- Bls: State of JIT compiler, Mario Ray Mahardhika, 2011/02/23
- Re: Bls: State of JIT compiler, Michael D Godfrey, 2011/02/23
- Re: Bls: State of JIT compiler, John W. Eaton, 2011/02/23
- Bls: State of JIT compiler, John W. Eaton, 2011/02/23
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Bls: Bls: Bls: State of JIT compiler, Mario Ray Mahardhika, 2011/02/24