From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25271 invoked by alias); 28 Oct 2009 11:15:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 25261 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Oct 2009 11:15:11 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_FAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from gbenson.demon.co.uk (HELO gbenson.demon.co.uk) (80.177.220.214) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:15:06 +0000 Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:15:00 -0000 From: Gary Benson To: libffi-discuss@sourceware.org Subject: Re: libffi & LLVM Message-ID: <20091028111503.GE3238@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: libffi-discuss@sourceware.org References: <4AE1965D.1030808@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4AE1965D.1030808@redhat.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact libffi-discuss-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libffi-discuss-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009/txt/msg00328.txt.bz2 Anthony Green wrote: > The latest MacRuby version replaced libffi with LLVM for closure > support, the result of which is 3 to 4 times performance boost: > http://www.macruby.org/blog/2009/10/07/macruby05b1.html I'm looking at doing something similar for Shark. In this case, it wouldn't be a straight replacement; methods would default to using libffi, and hot methods would be replaced with LLVM-build wrappers (in much the same way as interpreted methods default to using the interpreter and get replaced with LLVM-compiled code when hot). > I've been thinking for a while that a LLVM backend to libffi > makes sense. Does anybody have any thoughts or opinions on > this? Note that LLVM does not have JIT backends for anything like as many platforms as libffi supports. x86, x86_64, ppc, ppc64 (maybe), alpha and arm is I think it. Cheers, Gary -- http://gbenson.net/