Re: [Libjit-developers] libjit vs LLVM

[Rhys Weatherley]

On Friday 28 May 2004 01:12 pm, Chris Lattner wrote:

> I believe that the statement is true about .NET, JVM, and Parrot, but LLVM
> is exactly what you describe: a framework that can be used to build a
> number of different virtual machines.  In particular, LLVM assumes no
> runtime model or library: we currently JIT C,C++,Stacker (a forth-like
> language), and have good starts on Java, .NET, O-Caml, and Ruby
> front-ends.

I was going strictly by the documentation on your Web site.  From that
documentation, it appeared that LLVM had more in common with Parrot's imcc
mechanism than libjit.  I apologise if this is incorrect.

Libjit deliberately avoids intermediate on-disk formats.  Deliberately.  It
was a primary design goal.  That makes it less flexible than LLVM in some
ways, but (I believe) more useful to VM authors in others in that there are
fewer assumptions as to how the execution core will be used.  That's my
opinion, and you are certainly welcome to disagree.

Unfortunately, your Web site requires me to register to download the sources,
so it is difficult for me to investigate the sources to compare further.

As a matter of policy, I refuse to give up my privacy to download what is
apparently open source software.  I will be unable to compare the two systems
further until you give me a direct URL for the source .tar.gz file.

Cheers,

Rhys.