search for: compileandrelink

...d > llc or lli don't have to do any optimizations, because they have already > been performed. + > > Does it re-do these optimizations when functions are added/ removed/ > > changed? Are there parameters to tune the compiler's aggressiveness? > > There is a JIT::recompileAndRelinkFunction() method, but it doesn't > optimize the code. Ok, this makes sense. However, am I correct in assuming that the interaprocedural optimizations performed in gccas will make it problematic to call 'JIT::recompileAndRelinkFunction()' . For example, suppose I run run some module...

...ooking for some similar advice. I agree with misha. This should definately be discussed on-list if possible. >> Ok, this makes sense. However, am I correct in assuming that the >> interaprocedural optimizations performed in gccas will make it >> problematic to call 'JIT::recompileAndRelinkFunction()' . For example, >> suppose I run run some module that looks like ... >> through all of those optimizations. Will the result nessisarily have a >> bar() function? > > You are correct, it may get inlined. > >> If inlining is enabled, replacing bar migh...

.... > > I agree with misha. This should definately be discussed on-list if > possible. > >>> Ok, this makes sense. However, am I correct in assuming that the >>> interaprocedural optimizations performed in gccas will make it >>> problematic to call 'JIT::recompileAndRelinkFunction()' . For >>> example, >>> suppose I run run some module that looks like > > ... > >>> through all of those optimizations. Will the result nessisarily have >>> a >>> bar() function? >> >> You are correct, it may get inli...

...may get multiple perspectives, and the discussion is archived for future LLVMers who are looking for some similar advice. > Ok, this makes sense. However, am I correct in assuming that the > interaprocedural optimizations performed in gccas will make it > problematic to call 'JIT::recompileAndRelinkFunction()' . For example, > suppose I run run some module that looks like > > module a > > int foo () { > ... > bar() > ... > } > > int bar () { > ... > } > > through all of those optimizations. Will the result nessisarily have a > bar() f...

..., and the SparcV9 backend uses a graph-coloring register allocator. However, the JIT performs no inlining, as mentioned above. > Does it re-do these optimizations when functions are added/ removed/ > changed? Are there parameters to tune the compiler's aggressiveness? There is a JIT::recompileAndRelinkFunction() method, but it doesn't optimize the code. > Does there happen to be a C interface to the jit ? Our scheme impl > has a good FFI, but it doesn't do C++. If not, this is no big deal, > and i'll just write something myself. No, this would have to be added. > While...

Hi List, I am in the preliminary stages of adding a JIT compiler to a sizable Scheme system (PLT Scheme). The original plan was to use GNU Lightning, but 1) it seems to be dead, and 2) LLVM has already done a huge amount of stuff that I would have had to write (poorly) from scratch. At the moment, LLVM seems to be the ideal choice for implementing the Scheme JIT, but there are problems that need