Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-harmony-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 38978 invoked from network); 23 May 2005 00:45:26 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 23 May 2005 00:45:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 55632 invoked by uid 500); 23 May 2005 00:45:22 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-harmony-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 55572 invoked by uid 500); 23 May 2005 00:45:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 55557 invoked by uid 99); 23 May 2005 00:45:21 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: unknown (hermes.apache.org: error in processing during lookup of archie@dellroad.org) Received: from mxsf40.cluster1.charter.net (HELO mxsf40.cluster1.charter.net) (209.225.28.172) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Sun, 22 May 2005 17:45:18 -0700 Received: from mxip07a.cluster1.charter.net (mxip07a.cluster1.charter.net [209.225.28.137]) by mxsf40.cluster1.charter.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j4N0jFJ2005339 for ; Sun, 22 May 2005 20:45:15 -0400 Received: from cable-24-196-9-159.mtv.al.charter.com (HELO InterJet.dellroad.org) (24.196.9.159) by mxip07a.cluster1.charter.net with ESMTP; 22 May 2005 20:45:14 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="3.93,127,1115006400"; d="scan'208"; a="944523648:sNHT16282014" Received: from arch20m.dellroad.org (arch20m.dellroad.org [10.2.2.20]) by InterJet.dellroad.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA91789 for ; Sun, 22 May 2005 19:37:10 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arch20m.dellroad.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j4N0b6M9041890 for ; Sun, 22 May 2005 19:37:07 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from archie@dellroad.org) Message-ID: <429125B2.1040508@dellroad.org> Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 19:37:06 -0500 From: Archie Cobbs User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20041129 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Other interesting papers and research References: <135798817.1116804605583.JavaMail.root@set.superlinksoftware.com> In-Reply-To: <135798817.1116804605583.JavaMail.root@set.superlinksoftware.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N acoliver@apache.org wrote: > The approach of using C Compiler generated code rather than writing a > full compiler appeals to me: > http://www.csc.uvic.ca/~csc586a/papers/ertlgregg04.pdf > > I am curious on how well the approach performs compared to existing JITs. I'm admittedly biased, but the approach of using the C compiler has some good benefits, mainly in portability. This is especially true for architectures like x86 that have a complicated instruction set, where optmization is a subtle art. Though JC uses the C compiler as a WAT instead of a JIT, it is very portable (to any architecture that GCC targets) as a result. To the extent that portability is a goal, this might make sense as an approach to take, at least initially. -Archie __________________________________________________________________________ Archie Cobbs * CTO, Awarix * http://www.awarix.com