[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: wip-rtl native closure creation

From: Noah Lavine
Subject: Re: wip-rtl native closure creation
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 07:44:54 -0400

I haven't looked at the RTL program structure, but adding a new field
is basically what I did with the non-RTL program structure when I
worked on JIT there.

However, in that case we could still keep everything under 4 words. I
don't know if that will work here.


On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 5:39 AM, Sjoerd van Leent Privé
<address@hidden> wrote:
> On 06-08-12 11:32, Andy Wingo wrote:
>> On Sun 05 Aug 2012 17:19, Stefan Israelsson Tampe
>> <address@hidden> writes:
>>> Probably it is best to have the first qword / dword in the code to be
>>> 0 or the native adress e.g. I propose to add that feature to the
>>> rtl-branch.
>> Good question!  Given the different tradeoffs, that seems workable.
>> Another possibility would be to use a different TC7 for native
>> procedures.  After all, the only calls we need to make cheaply are
>> native->native and bytecode->bytecode, and the rest can go through a
>> general dispatch loop (possibly with inline caching).  WDYT?  (Also note
>> that RTL words are 32 bits wide, which may or may not be sufficient for
>> native code pointers.)
>> Andy
> Wouldn't it be feasible in the future that there might be, because of more
> memory, other designs, such as caching, which create much more closures than
> current designs? I don't know, but on 64-bit platforms (and perhaps even
> architectures with a larger bus), it seems to me that it is necessary to
> stick to this bus length.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]