On Sunday, 15 January 2012 at 0:41 , Michał Bendowski wrote:
> On Saturday, 14 January 2012 at 22:28 , Maciej Fijalkowski wrote: > > > On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Michał Bendowski <[email protected] > > (mailto:[email protected])> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 13 January 2012 at 16:02 , Antonio Cuni wrote: > > > > > > > Hello Michał, > > > > > > > > On 01/12/2012 09:24 PM, Michał Bendowski wrote: > > > > > Hello everyone, > > > > > > > > > > Back in the summer I asked on this mailing list if there's interest > > > > > in moving the JVM backend forward. Back then there was some > > > > > enthusiasm, so I got back to it when I had the chance, which > > > > > unfortunately was a few months later. The suggestion back then was to > > > > > look into using JPype to integrate more closely with Java-side code, > > > > > and that's what I would like to do. > > > > > > > > > > But before that, I noticed that the JVM backend fails to translate > > > > > the standard interpreter and spent some time lately getting to know > > > > > the code and trying to get it to work. What I have right now is a > > > > > version that outputs valid Jasmin files, which unfortunately still > > > > > contain some invalid bytecodes (longs vs ints from what I've seen, > > > > > I'll look into it next). > > > > > > > > > > > > the long vs int problems are likely due to the fact that you are > > > > translating > > > > on a 64 bit machine. The translator toolchain assumes that the "native" > > > > long > > > > type of the target platform is the same as the source one, but this is > > > > not the > > > > case if you are targeting the JVM (where long is 32 bit) on a 64 bit > > > > linux > > > > (where long is 64 bit). > > > > > > > > This problem is not easily solvable, so my suggestion is just to > > > > translate > > > > pypy-jvm inside a 32bit chroot for now. > > > > > > > > > It would be awesome if someone could take a look at my changes. > > > > > What's the best way to submit them? Bitbucket pull requests? They > > > > > will need to go through some review - do you have a workflow for that? > > > > > > > > > > > > we don't have any precise workflow, although a bitbucket pull request > > > > might be > > > > the easiest thing to do. I'll be glad to review it. > > > > > > > > > Here's a short list of stuff I found and fixed (hopefully): > > > > > - support the ll_getlength method of StringBuilders in ootype, > > > > > - make compute_unique_id work on built-ins (StringBuilders again). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not sure what you mean here. What is the relation between > > > > compute_unique_id > > > > and StringBuilder? > > > > > > > > > - provide oo implementations (or stubs) for pypy__rotateLeft, > > > > > pypy__longlong2float etc. > > > > > - handle rffi.SHORT and rffi.INT showing up in graphs. For now I try > > > > > to emit something that makes sense (seemed easier), but the right > > > > > solution is probably to see if the code in question (rbigint, rsha) > > > > > can be implemented on the java level. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yes, this is another issue that has been around for a long time. In > > > > theory, we > > > > would like to be able to write per-backend specific code which > > > > overrides the > > > > default implementation. This would be useful for rbigint and rsha, but > > > > also > > > > e.g. for rlib.streamio. However, we never wrote the infrastructure to > > > > do that. > > > > > > > > > - handle the jit_is_virtual opcode - I had no idea how to "safely > > > > > ignore" it for now, is False the safe answer? > > > > > > > > > > > > yes. Look at translator/c/funcgen.py:848: this is how jit_is_virtual is > > > > implemented by the C backend, you can see that it always returns 0/ > > > > > > > > > I hope someone can help me to submit the changes and maybe guide with > > > > > further work. > > > > > > > > > > > > Please put your work on bitbucket, I'll review it. I'd greatly > > > > appreciate if > > > > you committed small checkins (one for each fix/feature you are doing) > > > > instead > > > > of one giant commit with all the changes :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK, I got myself a 32bit environment and created the pull request (. I'll > > > be grateful for any feedback. One thing I didn't do was to create > > > regression tests against the problems I found - I didn't know where to > > > put the tests and what (and how) exactly to test. If you can shed some > > > light on it, that would be awesome. > > > > > > Lack of tests is a no-no in PyPy world :) Look how current tests are > > implemented in pypy/translator/jvm/test/ and either extend those or > > the base classes. You run them using py.test (which comes included > > with pypy), refer to py.test documentation for details > > > > > I'll look into it, looks like a whole new codebase to grep through (and I > already found a bug in my code). I'll create a new pull request when I'm > ready with the tests :) OK - I have create another pull requests here: https://bitbucket.org/pypy/pypy/pull-request/20/improvements-to-the-jvm-backend-this-time The previous one should be rejected/deleted, it seems impossible from my side. I will be grateful for comments about the changes. Michał _______________________________________________ pypy-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
