Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "mozilla2".
Did you mean:
mozilla
2007 Dec 03
1
[LLVMdev] LLVM footprint
...ing the
interpreter as well? That is, I'm pretty sure I always want to JIT code and
never interpret it, but it looks like I currently have to pay a codesize
penalty for the interpreter anyway.
Right now this is personal experimentation, but if Mozilla decides to use te
LLVM JIT for some of our Mozilla2 projects we'll definitely be contributing
to reduce the footprint as much as possible, as well as the MSVC thiscall
support I mentioned before.
- --BDS
- --
Benjamin Smedberg
Platform Guru
Mozilla Corporation
benjamin at smedbergs.us
http://benjamin.smedbergs.us/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----...
2007 Dec 03
0
[LLVMdev] LLVM footprint
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
> What is the expected footprint of a tool using the LLVM JIT?
Right now it's ~1.5 to 2M for one platform, at least on darwin.
> I have created a simple project that uses the LLVM C++ API to JIT calls
> to XPCOM method signature... it works well, but the component DLL is
> very large (Linux x86-74, 5.8MB optimized and stripped). Is
2007 Dec 03
2
[LLVMdev] LLVM footprint
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
What is the expected footprint of a tool using the LLVM JIT?
I have created a simple project that uses the LLVM C++ API to JIT calls to
XPCOM method signature... it works well, but the component DLL is very large
(Linux x86-74, 5.8MB optimized and stripped). Is this normal? Am I linking
to "too much" or not using the correct link flags?