similar to: LuaJIT on Xen

19.08.2012, 00:39, "Julian Klappenbach" <jklappenbach at gmail.com>: >With this approach, the community would gain language independence for browsers Browser community is strongly opposed to the idea of having multiple web-faced languages > The first language I'd like to tackle is ECMAScript / Javascript. You can tale a look at llvm-lua project. However, speed of JIT

On 08/09/15 16:15, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Tue, 2015-09-08 at 15:03 +0000, Antti Kantee wrote: > >> For unikernels, the rump kernel project provides Rumprun, which can >> provide you with a near-full POSIX'y interface. > > I'm not 100% clear: Does rumprun _build_ or _run_ the application? It sound > s like it builds but the name suggests otherwise. For all

Hello Michael, On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > Hi Nikolay, > I poked at src/lib/virtio/virtq.lua a bit - > I was surprised to find no explicit CPU memory > barriers in the virtq implementation. > These are typically required when using virtio > on smp machines - the spec actually mention where > barriers are necessary.

Hello Duncan, > thanks for your interesting email. Do you understand why PyPy is no longer > using LLVM, and why Unladen Swallow died? Does LLVM need to be improved in > some way? The answers to all these questions are linked: LLVM is not fast enough (for a JIT). Of course this is not the whole story, but it is the LLVM-relevant part. Let's have a look at some random performance

On Tue, 2015-09-08 at 18:38 +0000, Antti Kantee wrote: > On 08/09/15 16:15, Ian Campbell wrote: > > On Tue, 2015-09-08 at 15:03 +0000, Antti Kantee wrote: > > > > > For unikernels, the rump kernel project provides Rumprun, which can > > > provide you with a near-full POSIX'y interface. > > > > I'm not 100% clear: Does rumprun _build_ or _run_

Hi Nikolay, I poked at src/lib/virtio/virtq.lua a bit - I was surprised to find no explicit CPU memory barriers in the virtq implementation. These are typically required when using virtio on smp machines - the spec actually mention where barriers are necessary. Are the barriers implicit somehow for lua? I'd be curious to learn. Thanks, -- MST

Hi Nikolay, I poked at src/lib/virtio/virtq.lua a bit - I was surprised to find no explicit CPU memory barriers in the virtq implementation. These are typically required when using virtio on smp machines - the spec actually mention where barriers are necessary. Are the barriers implicit somehow for lua? I'd be curious to learn. Thanks, -- MST

Thanks to help in a previous thread, I now have a working LLVM codegen for the MLton compiler. Currently the stack is managed explicitly on the heap. This way the LLVM codegen re-uses the runtime layout of the other codegens, simplifying the initial porting effort. In the next phase I plan to switch to using LLVM to manage the stack, but there is a sticking point: MLton switches stacks. It does

On Tue, 2015-09-08 at 15:03 +0000, Antti Kantee wrote: > For unikernels, the rump kernel project provides Rumprun, which can > provide you with a near-full POSIX'y interface. I'm not 100% clear: Does rumprun _build_ or _run_ the application? It sound s like it builds but the name suggests otherwise. > Rumprun also provides > toolchain wrappers so that you can compile

Hi, Wei Liu hinted that I should "chime in and / or provide corrections" (his words). I'll attempt to do exactly that by not really replying to anything specific. For the record, when I say "we" in this mail, I mean "people who have contributed to the rump kernel project" (as also indicated by the email-hat). First of all, there's a difference between

I have a concept for which I'm conducting an initial analysis. The broader idea is to create an LLVM, JIT based runtime that would create a platform amenable to scripting languages, but do so while enforcing an optional sandbox environment when dictated by security concerns (browsers, user preferences). With this approach, the community would gain language independence for browsers, as well

Hi Bekket, Sorry for the delayed reply. By appropriate, I mean performance of compiled native code. I was referring other JIT implementations like LuaJIT & webkit FTL JIT to see how they implement their JIT. I have gone through the design of Spider Monkey & Android runtime (ART) JIT. As, you said both region based and method based compilation unit have their own advantage &

I would like to announce the availability of llvm-lua. llvm-lua, converts Lua bytecode to LLVM IR code and supports JIT and static compiling. Using LLVM gives Lua JIT support on cpu architectures other then x86. I converted the Lua bytecode dispatch loop code into a set of C functions one for each opcode. The opcode functions take two parmeters one is the current Lua function's state,

Terra: A low-level counterpart to Lua By Zach DeVito (http://cs.stanford.edu/~zdevito) Terra (http://terralang.org/) is a system programming language that is embedded in and meta-programmed by Lua, which handles details like conditional compilation, type systems, namespaces, and templating/function specialization that are normally special constructs in other languages. Terra code shares

On 25/01/11 00:17, David A. Greene wrote: [...] > The rewrite is happening. I've got the skeleton of the codegen done, > but I have to get it to build before I can check it in. After that, > everyone can start adding patterns. Is the new C backend 'register' based, that is, generating lots of little statements operating on lots of variables, rather than producing the huge

Hi Travis, ... > LLVM is still very relevant to Python because of projects like Numba --- but you > should know that PyPy is no longer using LLVM and Unladen Swallow has not been > worked on for several years. The future of LLVM and Python I think is very > bright --- especially for the scientific and data-analysis user-base. thanks for your interesting email. Do you understand

David Given <dg at cowlark.com> writes: > The obvious place to start on this is the C backend, except in these 2.8 > days the C backend is so hedged about with caveats I'm rather wary of > basing anything on it. I also recall seeing comments here that it's due > for a rewrite from scratch, and that various people were looking into > it. Can anyone go into more detail

Processing commands for control at bugs.debian.org: > # bts housekeeping - fixing up versions to enable automatic bug archival > notfound 706747 3.2p1.4-28.1 Bug #706747 {Done: Andreas Beckmann <anbe at debian.org>} [olvwm] olvwm: fails to install [i386]: update-alternatives: error: alternative path /usr/bin/X11/olvwm-x-window-manager doesn't exist. There is no source info for the

On 10 May 2014, at 13:53, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: > It doesn't make sense for everything though, particularly if you want > target-specific IR to simply not exist. What would you map ARM's > "ldrex" to on x86? This isn't a great example. Having load-linked / store-conditional in the IR would make a number of transforms related to

[ https://www.centos.org/search.php?query=atomicorp&mid=30&action=showall&andor=AND forum search] returns a 404. Can the forum search https://www.centos.org/forums/search.php? be used with parameters that will provide the supporting material for the warning "Many CentOS users have had problems after enabling this repo"? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML