search for: stubforg

...entPointer }; map<FnDescriptor, FnState> it could be really useful. Let's imagine the same scenario with f that calls g while g is not yet compiled. At the beginning of this scenario, "g" "void ()" could simply be associated to a FnState with <null, List<>, stubForG>. After f's compilation, it could be something like that <null, List<RelocationTable-of-module-f>, stubForG>. And after the compilation of g, something like <moduleOfG, List<Reloc-f, Reloc-g>, compiledCode-of-g> with the relocation entries updated? Otherwise, fo...

...entPointer }; map<FnDescriptor, FnState> it could be really useful. Let's imagine the same scenario with f that calls g while g is not yet compiled. At the beginning of this scenario, "g" "void ()" could simply be associated to a FnState with <null, List<>, stubForG>. After f's compilation, it could be something like that <null, List<RelocationTable-of-module-f>, stubForG>. And after the compilation of g, something like <moduleOfG, List<Reloc-f, Reloc-g>, compiledCode-of-g> with the relocation entries updated? Otherwise, fo...

...<FnDescriptor, FnState> > > it could be really useful. Let's imagine the same scenario with f that calls g while g is not yet compiled. At the beginning of this scenario, "g" "void ()" could simply be associated to a FnState with > > <null, List<>, stubForG>. > > After f's compilation, it could be something like that > > <null, List<RelocationTable-of-module-f>, stubForG>. > > And after the compilation of g, something like > > <moduleOfG, List<Reloc-f, Reloc-g>, compiledCode-of-g> > > with t...

...ptor, FnState> > > it could be really useful. Let's imagine the same scenario with f that > calls g while g is not yet compiled. At the beginning of this > scenario, "g" "void ()" could simply be associated to a FnState with > > <null, List<>, stubForG>. > > After f's compilation, it could be something like that > > <null, List<RelocationTable-of-module-f>, stubForG>. > > And after the compilation of g, something like > > <moduleOfG, List<Reloc-f, Reloc-g>, compiledCode-of-g> > > with t...

...> >> it could be really useful. Let's imagine the same scenario with f that >> calls g while g is not yet compiled. At the beginning of this >> scenario, "g" "void ()" could simply be associated to a FnState with >> >> <null, List<>, stubForG>. >> >> After f's compilation, it could be something like that >> >> <null, List<RelocationTable-of-module-f>, stubForG>. >> >> And after the compilation of g, something like >> >> <moduleOfG, List<Reloc-f, Reloc-g>, compil...

...could be really useful. Let's imagine the same scenario with f that >>> calls g while g is not yet compiled. At the beginning of this >>> scenario, "g" "void ()" could simply be associated to a FnState with >>> >>> <null, List<>, stubForG>. >>> >>> After f's compilation, it could be something like that >>> >>> <null, List<RelocationTable-of-module-f>, stubForG>. >>> >>> And after the compilation of g, something like >>> >>> <moduleOfG, List...

Hi Andy, We had previous discussions about this, I'd like to state more exactly what features would make MCJIT a replacement for the JIT. After putting significant effort trying to move to MCJIT, I'm currently back with the JIT. This is in a REPL environment where functions are added and removed dynamically and response time is important. The issue is the legacy JIT provides great

...ould be really useful. Let's imagine the same scenario with f >>> that calls g while g is not yet compiled. At the beginning of this >>> scenario, "g" "void ()" could simply be associated to a FnState with >>> >>> <null, List<>, stubForG>. >>> >>> After f's compilation, it could be something like that >>> >>> <null, List<RelocationTable-of-module-f>, stubForG>. >>> >>> And after the compilation of g, something like >>> >>> <moduleOfG, List...

...useful. Let's imagine the same scenario with f >>>> that calls g while g is not yet compiled. At the beginning of this >>>> scenario, "g" "void ()" could simply be associated to a FnState with >>>> >>>> <null, List<>, stubForG>. >>>> >>>> After f's compilation, it could be something like that >>>> >>>> <null, List<RelocationTable-of-module-f>, stubForG>. >>>> >>>> And after the compilation of g, something like >>>> >...

...magine the same scenario with f >>>> that calls g while g is not yet compiled. At the beginning of this >>>> scenario, "g" "void ()" could simply be associated to a FnState >>>> with >>>> >>>> <null, List<>, stubForG>. >>>> >>>> After f's compilation, it could be something like that >>>> >>>> <null, List<RelocationTable-of-module-f>, stubForG>. >>>> >>>> And after the compilation of g, something like >>>> >...

Hi Gaël, I'm not familiar enough with the details of the old JIT engine and its event interface to comment on whether or not your changes are appropriate, but I'm not sure anyone is so the patch is probably OK as is. I don't see any obvious problems with it. However, your description of the changes raises a bigger issue in my mind. I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but