GCC + libJIT instead of LLVM

Hello Dear GCC Developers, I would like to ask your opinion about possibility for integration of the libJIT Just-In-Time compilation library and GCC. For example, the same way as libffi is integrated within gcc source tree. It seems to me that LLVM solves many goals that are already complete and

Re: GCC + libJIT instead of LLVM

And no this is not a 1st April joke :-) Thanks, Kirill 2009/4/1 Kirill Kononenko : > Hello Dear GCC Developers, > > > > I would like to ask your opinion about possibility for integration of > the libJIT Just-In-Time compilation library and GCC. For example, the >

Re: GCC + libJIT instead of LLVM

More useful in implementation of Just-In-Time compilation in Virtual Machine runtimes. For example, for Microsoft Common Intermediate Language (.NET). Thanks, Kirill 2009/4/1 Andrew Haley : > Kirill Kononenko wrote: > >> I would like to ask your opinion about possibility for in

Re: GCC + libJIT instead of LLVM

>> 2009/4/1 Andrew Haley : >>> Kirill Kononenko wrote: >>> >>>> I would like to ask your opinion about possibility for integration of >>>> the libJIT Just-In-Time compilation library and GCC. For example, the >>>> same way as libffi is

Re: GCC + libJIT instead of LLVM

2009/4/1 Dave Korn : > Kirill Kononenko wrote: >>>> 2009/4/1 Andrew Haley: >>>>> Kirill Kononenko wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I would like to ask your opinion about possibility for integration of >>>>>> the libJIT Just-I

Re: GCC + libJIT instead of LLVM

>> The second issue (which perhaps Kirill did not thought of) would be to >> accelerate some internal optimisations of GCC by using JIT-code >> generation techniques within the compiler itself. There are several >> occasions within GCC where complex internal processing happens, and one >> could ima

Re: GCC + libJIT instead of LLVM

> However, I see several interesting issues raised here: > > the first is to [re-]use GCC for just in time compilation, for instance to > JIT-compile CLI or JVM bytecode into machine code, or even C or some > specialized gimple-like representation into machine code, or CLISP into > machine code, al

Re: GCC + libJIT instead of LLVM

2009/4/1 Andrew Haley : > Kirill Kononenko wrote: >>>> 2009/4/1 Andrew Haley : >>>>> Kirill Kononenko wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I would like to ask your opinion about possibility for integration of >>>>>> the libJIT Just-I

Re: GCC + libJIT instead of LLVM

2009/4/1 Basile STARYNKEVITCH : >>> >>> The second issue (which perhaps Kirill did not thought of) would be to >>> accelerate some internal optimisations of GCC by using JIT-code >>> generation >>> techniques within the compiler itself. There are several occasions within >>> GCC where complex inter

Re: GCC + libJIT instead of LLVM

2009/4/1 Dave Korn : >> LLVM is an overkill for JIT compilation. I think the tasks which LLVM >> solves are already solved within GCC transformations, or can be >> integrated very easily with libJIT. LibJIT is also much easier in >> usage, for ordinary developers. So what I see here, LLVM is rather

Re: GCC + libJIT instead of LLVM

>> Kirill and Andrew wrote: >> "April Fool's joke" >>> "not your area of expertise" >> >> Maybe it would be for the best if you two started over, before this turns >> sour. > > I'm out of here already! All I can say is that I hope my boss never finds > out that virtual machines and JITs ar

Re: GCC + libJIT instead of LLVM

> >> My explanations seem to have also failed to explain you. >> Unfortunately, one really needs have some back group with both >> Just-In-Time compilers,Virtual Machines, and Common Intermediate >> Language to understand this area. I understand that it is not your >> area of expertise, so it is no

Re: GCC + libJIT instead of LLVM

>>> My explanations seem to have also failed to explain you. >>> Unfortunately, one really needs have some back group with both >>> Just-In-Time compilers,Virtual Machines, and Common Intermediate >>> Language to understand this area. I understand that it is not your >>> area of expertise, so it is

Re: GCC + libJIT instead of LLVM

>>> It seems to >>> me that LLVM solves many goals that are already complete and solved in >>> GCC. So I think libJIT potentially is more useful for GCC and software >>> developers. >> >> but you don't say what libjit would be more useful than, or how this >> overlap >> between "solved goals" betwe

Re: GCC + libJIT instead of LLVM

2009/4/1 Daniel Berlin : > On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 5:33 AM, Kirill Kononenko > wrote: >> Hello Dear GCC Developers, >> >> >> >> I would like to ask your opinion about possibility for integration of >> the libJIT Just-In-Time compilation library and GCC.

Re: GCC + libJIT instead of LLVM

research topic like me and gcc internals. Please also stop flaming about LLVM. Thanks, Kirill 2009/4/1 Kirill Kononenko : > 2009/4/1 Daniel Berlin : >> On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 5:33 AM, Kirill Kononenko >> wrote: >>> Hello Dear GCC Developers, >>> >>> >

Re: GCC + libJIT instead of LLVM

Hello Everyone Do I understand it correctly that there are no useful thoughts or ideas with flamimg and flooding about LLVM? Thanks, Kirill 2009/4/1 Kirill Kononenko : > Please, let collect together all useful ideas and concrete thoughts? I > am sure many people already have thought

Re: GCC + libJIT instead of LLVM

Do I understand it correctly that there are no useful thoughts or ideas with-out- flaming and flooding about LLVM? Thanks, Kirill > > 2009/4/1 Kirill Kononenko : >> Please, let collect together all useful ideas and concrete thoughts? I >> am sure many people already have t

Re: GCC + libJIT instead of LLVM

me in the rubbish bin. So no productivity of my part is lost. Thanks, Kirill 2009/4/3 Dave Korn : > Kirill Kononenko wrote: >> Do I understand it correctly that there are no useful thoughts or >> ideas with-out- flaming and flooding about LLVM? > > I will admit that I d

(mcs | csc | cscc) & gcc & libJIT == LLVM ?

I have been asked by many private emails to more precisely specify what I mean in my proposal. The formula above in the topic, illustrates shortly my idea. I already have a lot of work to do on both coding, research, and documentation so please let me know as more precisely as possible your thought

Re: GCC + libJIT instead of LLVM

Hi Ian, Thank you a lot for your reply. > >> There have been mentioned a couple of ideas indeed. But I would not >> like to spend a lot of my precious time on telling my thoughts and >> suggestions, if the topic is already decided elsewhere. So I basically >> want asking question which exactly J

Re: GCC + libJIT instead of LLVM

books for example even. It is very different from private correspondence, citing which is just disgusting when done intentionally. Thanks, Kirill 2009/4/3 Basile STARYNKEVITCH : > Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> >> Kirill Kononenko writes: >> >> >>> >>> There ha

Re: GCC + libJIT instead of LLVM

/4/3 Diego Novillo : > On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 10:54, Kirill Kononenko > wrote: > >> What I want to identify is how both a VM engine(ILDJIT, >> .NET for example, Mono, Portable.NET), gcc and libJIT could be >> extended with minimal changes to both, for best user experience fo

Re: GCC + libJIT instead of LLVM

ks, Kirill 2009/4/5 Kirill Kononenko : > > > After many considerations, I want to let everyone know about a release > of my work done in a package: > > > > 0.1.2.5 + / 0.1.2 1/2 version release (code name: "libJIT-ON-TESTOSTERONE") > >        * m

Re: GCC + libJIT instead of LLVM

Hello Everyone I wanted to let you know that if there is someone interested in working on the libJIT approach instead of using LLVM overkill under a Google Summer of Code code project and more general on this topic or as a diploma I am ready to mentor and help with this. Thanks, Kirill 2009/4/

GCC + libJIT + Domain Specific Languages Concept Integration

much I can help. Thanks, Kirill 2009/4/17 Kirill Kononenko : > Hello Everyone > > > I wanted to let you know that if there is someone interested in > working on the libJIT approach instead of using LLVM overkill under a > Google Summer of Code code project and more general on

Summer of Code 2009 "Support for an ELF writer"

Hello So how did it happen that the only project which was a candidate for libJIT Summer of Code in GNU, with the same title got selected in LLVM? Does it mean that the same genius idea came to two minds? Thanks, Kirill -- http://code.google.com/p/libjit-linear-scan-register-allocator/

Re: [LLVMdev] Summer of Code 2009 "Support for an ELF writer"

Sorry for this off-topic. I did not tell it is a conspiracy. I only found this funny. Thanks, Kirill 2009/4/21 Bill Wendling : > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Kirill Kononenko > wrote: >> Hello >> >> >> So how did it happen that the only project which was a

libJIT + GCC integration and PLDI 2009

Hi Everyone I will be participating at PLDI 2009 SRC (ACM Programming Language Design and Implementation) with my poster "Mathematical Apparatus for Aggressive Optimization of Register Allocation in a Library for Just-In-Time Compilation in Microsoft Common Intermediate Language Runtimes on Embed