Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "foojitstream".
Did you mean:
foojitstreamer
2010 Nov 16
2
[LLVMdev] MC-JIT Design
...ation informations) or in file
(with relocation informations). This allow to reload code from previous run,
or even to have a powerful server preparing code and clients executing code.
This not really tied to first or second proposition. And even for creating a
"FOOJIT" format, you need a FOOJITStreamer, a FOOJITObjectWriter and
probably a raw_ostream interface to write in memory. Seems really similar to
the first set of patchs to me.
What need to be done :
- We need to define a FOOJIT format. Maybe we can focus on having a FOOJIT
format only for "fast path" now, and adding relocation...
2010 Nov 16
0
[LLVMdev] MC-JIT Design
...or in file
> (with relocation informations). This allow to reload code from previous run,
> or even to have a powerful server preparing code and clients executing code.
> This not really tied to first or second proposition. And even for creating a
> "FOOJIT" format, you need a FOOJITStreamer, a FOOJITObjectWriter and
> probably a raw_ostream interface to write in memory. Seems really similar to
> the first set of patchs to me.
>
> What need to be done :
> - We need to define a FOOJIT format. Maybe we can focus on having a FOOJIT
> format only for "fast path&quo...
2010 Nov 16
0
[LLVMdev] MC-JIT Design
Hi,
I've been watching the MC-JIT progress for some time, and #2 certainly looks like the best idea to me. I think however you've missed an important selling point of the "FOOJIT" architecture:
* The use of a custom object file format directly enables the use of ahead-of-time compilation (using the JIT to recompile dynamically). Not only this but it allows the resaving of any
2010 Nov 15
8
[LLVMdev] MC-JIT Design
Hi all,
As promised, here is the rough design of the upcoming MC-JIT*.
Feedback appreciated!
(*) To be clear, we are only calling it the MC-JIT until we have
finished killing the old one. When I say JIT below, I mean the MC-JIT.
I basically am ignoring completely the existing JIT. I will keep
things API compatible whenever possible, of course.
I see two main design directions for the JIT:
--