Re: GCC + libJIT instead of LLVM

[Kirill Kononenko <kirill dot kononenko at gmail dot com>]

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 JITing support GCC needs, that I
>> don't spend my time in the rubbish bin. So no productivity of my part
>> is lost.
>
> It doesn't really work that way.  As far as I know, gcc is not at
> present looking for any JITing support.  That is, I don't know of any
> active gcc projects which want to use a JIT.  In normal gcc development
> practice, the gcc source base would not supply a JIT and see if gcc
> developers want to use it.  Instead, somebody with a useful project who
> needs a JIT would consider whether to use an existing library, such as
> libJIT or LLVM, or whether to invent something new.
>
> In other words, if your goal is to let us know that we can use libJIT,
> then: mission accomplished.  If your goal is to include libJIT in the
> gcc code base, then you need to 1) identify a gcc project which needs a
> JIT, 2) convince people to work on it, 3) convince them that libJIT is
> the right solution, 4) convince the gcc maintainers to accept the
> project and libJIT into gcc mainline.  No step may be omitted.

I think the issue that is there, is that many project want to include
their own source code in the gcc source tree. This is not a case in
this proposal. 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 for
example, is it speed performance, benchmark, code size, or power
consumption.


Thanks,
Kirill