[DGD] importance of bytecode compatibility

[Carter Cheng]

Thanks for the comment Kris. I guess in this case in some sense I am
substituting one kind of byte code for another (llvm SSA bit codes are
a form of byte code as you may well know).

On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 2:30 AM, Kris Van Hees <aedil at alchar.org> wrote:
> Just a very loose observation, but if you store your code in the snapshots,
> or otherwise store it for continued use for a reasonably long time, you are
> not really dealing with JIT code anymore, but rather a basic as-needed code
> generation.  One of the nicer features of JIT compilation is that it is
> essentially volatile... i.e. your code should continue to run perfectly fine
> if e.g. you were to want to discard compiled code in order to free up some
> resources.  Also, you might want to consider whether the compiled code is
> something you want to be written to swap, or whether it is only really going
> to make a difference for code that is used so frequently that it is not really
> going to get swapped much at all.
>
>        Kris
>
> On Sun, Aug 07, 2011 at 05:54:19PM +0200, Felix A. Croes wrote:
>> Carter Cheng <cartercheng at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I am curious how important bytecode compatibility is with older
>> > versions- since a very direct way of implementing a JIT on LLVM would
>> > be to modify codegeni.c to generate llvm bitcode and store this
>> > information instead of the bytecode in the control block data. Would
>> > this be acceptable since the new vm breaks the compat anyhow?
> ___________________________________________
> https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
>