On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Jonathan Worthington <jonat...@jnthn.net> wrote: > chromatic wrote: >> On Monday 19 January 2009 14:13:22 Bob Rogers wrote: >> >>> Do you think that would be fast enough? The usual way for dynamic >>> languages to get fast compiled numeric code is to bind variables to >>> hardware types at compile time, and then inline numeric operations in >>> order to use that information. That seems to require op_i_i_i and >>> op_n_n_n versions of these ops, which are not language-dependent. >>> >> >> I don't see how Parrot can be fast enough in general without JIT. With JIT, >> if these ops are implemented in terms of other ops, there's no speed penalty. >> >> > I think one criteria to consider is, are their architectures out there > (that we're targeting now or likely to) that have the equivalent op > implemented at a CPU instruction level, such that we could JIT it in the > future? If so, there's probably benefit in it staying a Parrot op. > > Jonathan > > _______________________________________________ > http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev >
I would rather defer that until we actually target those OSes; let's stick with our core platforms for now (especially since we don't even support JIT on all of our core platforms.) -- Will "Coke" Coleda
