Re: [Libjit-developers] libjit vs LLVM

[Gopal V]

Hi,

> > > > P.S. LLVM is very cool - I have nothing
> against it per se.  I've merely
> > > > set my sights a little lower in the interest
> of VM authors.

LLVM would be like build an intermediate byte code
and process that, while libjit is to build the in
memory tree ..

> Sure, I guess I was supposing that when libjit
> grows, it will develop the
> kinds of things that LLVM already has, that you
> don't like.

projects have a life of their own ... it's called
evolution :) 

I don't think libjit'll ever have an in memory (or
otherwise) bytecode format .. because that is not
what it is designed for ...

Loading stuff off a disk and loading the same format
off memory both have a few performance hits in memory
consumption , which libjit does not have as it needs
only one bytecode loader and not two like LLVM would
need , for example to write a JVM with (AFAIK).

> things like this.  As such, LLVM isn't "adapted to
> function as a JIT", it
> *INCLUDES* a JIT as one of its primary components.

Rather than compare LLVM to libjit, I'd like to 
compare LLVM to .NET itself ... which lets you
compile different language into the same bytecode
and execute it. Or the dynamic method creation 
(Reflection.Emit) looks similar to what LLVM does
before JIT'ing ...

> http://www.nondot.org/~sabre/Projects/

Having said all that ... I don't think it'll be
too impossible to hook up LLVM to Portable.net using
ILCoder stuff :)

Gopal


        
                
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/