On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Sure thing, if you are going to rip out PIC too, you are exactly at that. It's
> the combination of CGP, PIC, and JIT, which very well did (and maybe still
> does) the runtime optimizations you are looking for.
Thanks for the update Leo! Y
[ this reply is re $subject, not re $author in person]
Am Montag, 14. September 2009 19:09 schrieb Andrew Whitworth:
> It's a fundamental problem with the design that's the killer.
> Parrot JIT does essentially NOTHING to improve execution performance,
> other then streamlining op dispatch.
Sure
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Reini Urban wrote:
> lightning is still active and I use it on clisp. The developer is
> responsive, however there are no releases, everybody has to use current CVS.
> anonym...@cvs.savannah.gnu.org:/sources/lightning
>
> There are rarely bugs in the lib, so there
On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 18:19 +0200, Reini Urban wrote:
> My 5 cent on the other discussion points:
> It's ridicolous to rip out our current jit, just because not all *ops*
> are yet jitted, and some are buggy.
It's getting ripped out because it's broken, no one currently interested
in Parrot knows
Andy Dougherty schrieb:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009, Andy Dougherty wrote:
Here are a few random observations:
Gnu Lightning: According to the documentation:
"The low number of available registers (six) is also an important
limitation . . . ."
Does anyone have a sense how well that w
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009, Moritz Lenz wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 08:56:39AM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> > LibJIT:
> > The only URL I've found,
> > http://www.southern-storm.com.au/libjit.html
> > doesn't seem to go anywhere useful anymore. That's doesn't seem
> > to be a goo
Hi all,
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Andy Dougherty wrote:
>
> Here are a few random observations:
>
> Current JIT:
> Can anyone provide reasonable benchmarks for whether this actually
> provides any significant performance boost? (Obviously, this has
> to be done by someone on a pla
On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 08:56:39AM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009, Andrew Whitworth wrote:
>
> > In response to our discussion today in #ps, I have started drafting
> > some plans for implementing a proper JIT for Parrot. I have tried to
> > show several options for each step, e
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> Current JIT:
> Can anyone provide reasonable benchmarks for whether this actually
> provides any significant performance boost? (Obviously, this has
> to be done by someone on a platform where it currently works.)
I had seen some nu
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> Here are a few random observations:
>
> Gnu Lightning: According to the documentation:
>
> "The low number of available registers (six) is also an important
> limitation . . . ."
>
> Does anyone have a sense how well that would (or woul
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009, Andrew Whitworth wrote:
> In response to our discussion today in #ps, I have started drafting
> some plans for implementing a proper JIT for Parrot. I have tried to
> show several options for each step, each with pros and cons:
>
> https://trac.parrot.org/parrot/wiki/JITRewrit
In response to our discussion today in #ps, I have started drafting
some plans for implementing a proper JIT for Parrot. I have tried to
show several options for each step, each with pros and cons:
https://trac.parrot.org/parrot/wiki/JITRewrite
We need more input on this topic from everybody. We
Howdy,
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 7:05 AM, Andrew Whitworth wrote:
> I would like to suggest that we deprecate the majority of the current
> JIT system and put in a notice that it can be removed by 2.0. Some
> points:
+1
I would also like to help with this endeavor.
Duke
--
Jonathan Leto
jonat
Andrew Whitworth wrote:
I would like to suggest that we deprecate the majority of the current
JIT system and put in a notice that it can be removed by 2.0. Some
points:
+1 from. Especially because I'm blocked on JIT failure in context_pmc3
branch and looks like no one have idea how to fix it..
On Mon, 2009-08-31 at 10:05 -0400, Andrew Whitworth wrote:
> We do need to keep the JIT-based NCI call frame generator, but I would
> suggest that even this mechanism is not ideal and should be replaced
> eventually too. That portion of the JIT system is specifically omitted
> from this deprecation
I would like to suggest that we deprecate the majority of the current
JIT system and put in a notice that it can be removed by 2.0. Some
points:
1) The JIT system we have now only works on some i386 systems, so we
don't really "have JIT" on all our current target platforms now
anyway.
2) The syste
16 matches
Mail list logo
