Mailing-List: contact harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <42918EFC.9010100@fing.edu.uy>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 05:06:20 -0300
From: Ariel Sabiguero Yawelak <asabigue@fing.edu.uy>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050317)
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>
 <429125B2.1040508@dellroad.org>
In-Reply-To: <429125B2.1040508@dellroad.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Other interesting things that can be achieved are some sorts of high 
performance "tunning" aspects, which are very interesting, and using gcc 
power might be more interesting than redoing it from scratch, either, at 
the begining of current project, or maybe forever.
An adequate "bundle" of gcc and harmony might produce a JIT/WAT 
java/bytecode compilation. Moreover, the compilation parameters might be 
"tuneable" by the JVM administrator and choose between compilation 
speed, compilation performance, memory footprint, etc.
Appart from code-reusing, there is also an adequate sort of abstraction 
that is good here. and concentrating on this, we avoid discussing 
machine level details as we all agree that GCC is portable, performant 
and adequate.
Summing up, I support the idea of a java/bytecode to C compiler that can 
be bundled with gcc. As stated we would gain portability and we can use 
all facilities provided by gcc.

Ariel

Archie Cobbs wrote:

> 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
>
>