Re: [julia-users] LLVM.js
Ok, nice one, cheers. On Saturday, 4 October 2014 22:33:52 UTC+3, tshort 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 > > 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 > >>> 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 > >>> > wrote: > >>> > The Emscripten folks are doing some really cool stuff: > >>> > > http://badassjs.com/post/39573969361/llvm-js-llvm-itself-compiled-to-javascript-via > > >>> > > >>> > — John > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >> > > >
Re: [julia-users] LLVM.js
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 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 > >> > >> 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 > >>> > >>> 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 > >>> > 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
Re: [julia-users] LLVM.js
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 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 >> 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 >>> 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 >>> > wrote: >>> > The Emscripten folks are doing some really cool stuff: >>> > http://badassjs.com/post/39573969361/llvm-js-llvm-itself-compiled-to-javascript-via >>> > >>> > — John >>> > >>> > >>> >> >
Re: [julia-users] LLVM.js
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 > 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 > > 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-javascript-via >> > >> > — John >> > >> > >> >> >
