This sounds really impressive! --Tim
On Saturday, October 04, 2014 03:33:49 PM Tom Short wrote: > With the new static compilation capabilities (thanks Jeff, Keno, and > Jameson!) and the new compile=all option, Julia can generate a large > LLVM bitcode file using the following (in the devel version of Julia): > > cd julia/base > mkdir ../tmp > ../julia --build /home/tshort/julia/tmp --dump-bitcode=yes > --compile=all -J /home/tshort/julia/usr/lib/julia/sys.ji -f sysimg.jl > > After that, you can compile functions from the julia/tmp/sys.bc > bitcode file to JavaScript with something like (find the names of > functions in sys.bc with: llvm-nm sys.bc): > > cd ../tmp > emcc -v sys.bc -o out.js -s EXPORTED_FUNCTIONS="['_julia_abs;104547']" > > I've gotten individual functions like this to compile as well as pisum > from julia/test/perf/micro/perf.jl. In doing this, I've come across a > couple of items: > > * The sys.bc needs to be a 32-bit build. I haven't managed that, yet. > The devel versions have been a bit goofed lately for 32-bit use. > > More info: https://code.google.com/p/nativeclient/issues/detail?id=3931 > > * The current Emscripten has a bug with some Julia-generated bitcode. > > More info: https://code.google.com/p/nativeclient/issues/detail?id=3932 > > I've managed to compile about 90% of libjulia using Emscripten. I had > to cut out most of the code related to libuv. Unfortunately, I haven't > gotten any code to compile that used libjulia. Although, I've gotten > 90% of libjulia to compile, the missing 10% is called a lot. Still > more work to do there. My attempt involved hacking up the Makefiles. I > better attempt would involve making a new target to compile > libjulia.bc. > > The bottom line is that I think this'll work someday, but it will take > some work. > > Tom > > On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 11:08 AM, JobJob <jobbu....@gmail.com> wrote: > > Any updates on this? > > > > On Friday, 13 December 2013 15:16:31 UTC+2, tshort wrote: > >> I've played a little with this. Using Jameson's static compile branch, I > >> was able to dump some functions compiled by Julia to LLVM IR and compile > >> these with Emscripten. I did have to mess with some symbol names because > >> Emscripten doesn't like Julia's naming. See an Emscripten issue here: > >> > >> https://github.com/kripken/emscripten/issues/1888 > >> > >> I also took a quick look at compiling openlibm, and I ran into some > >> nonportable header stuff that would need to be worked on. > >> > >> The nice thing about trying to get compiled stuff to run is that you > >> don't > >> necessarily need all of Julia compiled. That means faster downloads, and > >> that we don't have to get everything working at the beginning. > >> > >> It'd be great if we could position Julia to be the leading numerical > >> language for the web. With both Firefox and Chrome running asm.js within > >> 2 - 4X of native, I think there's lots of opportunity here. > >> > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 12:22 AM, John Myles White <johnmyl...@gmail.com> > >> > >> wrote: > >>> I think it would also be great to think a bit about how we might use > >>> Julia to generate LLVM IR to generate Javascript for certain simple web > >>> tasks. Writing Julia code and then letting a package compile it into an > >>> includable Javascript file could be really fun. > >>> > >>> — John > >>> > >>> On Dec 12, 2013, at 9:19 PM, Stefan Karpinski <ste...@karpinski.org> > >>> > >>> wrote: > >>> > I’m not sure how practical it really is to wait until runtime to > >>> > compile your code rather than precompiling it > >>> > > >>> > It's pretty frigging practical, as it turns out. This is great. More > >>> > work in this direction and we may actually be able to run a full Julia > >>> > instance in a browser. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 12:14 AM, John Myles White > >>> > <johnmyl...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > The Emscripten folks are doing some really cool stuff: > >>> > http://badassjs.com/post/39573969361/llvm-js-llvm-itself-compiled-to-j > >>> > avascript-via>>> > > >>> > — John
