harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Xiao-Feng Li" <xiaofeng...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [drlvm][opt][translator] What dose JavaLabelPrepass do?
Date Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:25:38 GMT
On 17 Jan 2008 15:41:08 +0300, Egor Pasko <egor.pasko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On the 0x3CE day of Apache Harmony Simon Chow wrote:
> > On 17 Jan 2008 13:31:05 +0300, Egor Pasko <egor.pasko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On the 0x3CE day of Apache Harmony Simon Chow wrote:
> > > > On 17 Jan 2008 11:08:54 +0300, Egor Pasko <egor.pasko@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On the 0x3CD day of Apache Harmony Simon Chow wrote:
> > > > > > I am studying OPT in jitrino. For understanding the process
of
> > > building
> > > > > CFG,
> > > > > > I have read some code of JavaByteCodeTranslator.
> > > > > > In the constructor of JavaByteCodeTranslator, there is an additional
> > > > > pass
> > > > > > named JavaLabelPrepass,
> > > > > > I would like to ask what is the exact purpose of this pass?
> > > > >
> > > > > the purpose is to mark basic blocks and inference stack variables
and
> > > > > local variables with their types.
> > > > >
> > > > > This information goes to the input of JavaByteCodeTranslator, which
in
> > > > > single pass goes through each bytecode instruction and converts it
to
> > > > > operand-based representation from the stack-based in bytecode.
> > > > >
> > > > > The problem is a little tricky (with variable merging logic) and
> > > > > current design is poor.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Besides this, It is seems that the translator part will be refined,
> > > > > which I
> > > > > > saw in the wiki. Has it already been done in the current version?
> > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > >
> > > > > no, translator is not refined, low priority task.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why do you study the process of building CFG? If you want to do
> > > > > something with it, I would suggest to try some other place since
all
> > > > > JIT people here will agree that debugging JavalabelPrepass is
> > > > > brain-damaging.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thank!
> > > > I am doing a project for combining static compiler with dynamic
> > > compilation
> > > > environment (jitrino.OPT)
> > > > As first step, now I am planning to translate the Harmony IR to WHIRL.
> > >
> > > hm, do you have a kind of draft design document on how you want to do
> > > this? ..probably Harmony gurus can give some valuable input having
> > > read this doc.
> >
> >
> > There is no document for this yet, but I will write one in the next few days
> > after having a discussion with others in my group.
> > Our static compilation platform is Open64, some of my teammates are working
> > on it.
>
> just to make sure.. is the primary goal to replace/enhance Jitrino.OPT
> on IPF machines? Oh, those itanics..
>
> > I only have a little understanding of jitrino.OPT.
> > For achieving higher performance, which part or phases of jitrino.OPT could
> > be refined or replaced by Open64 optimization?
> > Could you give me some suggestion?
>
> I am afraid I am not familiar with Open64 at all, and there are
> concerns using a mix of Jitrino.OPT and Open64 since the latter is
> licensed under GPL. So, do not show me their code :)
>
> Jitrino.OPT/IPF is rather immature/experimental/untested/etc. So, if
> using Jitrino.OPT on IPF consider throwing away the code generator
> (but take care about generating the right calling convention and
> VM-related stuff like threading)
>
> As for the High-level optimizations, I do not know, where Open64 is
> better, maybe Xiaofeng knows? :)

As I know, the team led by Prof Yang and Mao are using Open64 with the
new X86 backend. :) Of course,
if they make it well, they can apply the work to IPF as well.
I think the major issues are in root set enumeration support and the
stack frame work (gc safepoint, exception). Open64 middle-end has been
designed and tuned very well. But the issue is how to expand the
optimization scope with IPA, such as virtual method inlining and
escape analysis, etc.

Thanks,
xiaofeng

> I may try to forsee something: Fortran & C compilers have more freedom
> for code motion and prefetch optimizations than a Java JIT compiler
> (which has a more dynamic nature), so, when ported to Java realities a
> C compiler is likely to behave not very cool.
>
> I would suggest you to enhance Jitrino IPF codegenerator in
> if-conversion and register allocation, that looks like more
> interesting and performance-beneficial. However, I am not sure if it
> suits you good as a subject of research.
>
> Did you try running DRLVM on IPF? Does it work? Does it even compile?
>
> > By the way, This idea is original from Xiaofeng :)
> >
> > Thank you every much!
> >
> > > But I can not find more information for the CFG structure in jitrino.OPT,
> > > > which leads me to read the code in translation part. :(
> > > > Any advice for this?
> > >
> > > there is no complete reference guide for HIR instructions yet. Once I
> > > gave advice on this:
> > >
> > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.harmony.devel/24474/
> > >
> > > feel free to ask specific questions on CFG and instructions :)
> > >
> > > --
> > > Egor Pasko
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > From : Simon.Chow@Software School of Fudan University
>
> --
> Egor Pasko
>
>



-- 
http://xiao-feng.blogspot.com

Mime
View raw message