Ops Review

Will Coleda will at coleda.com
Tue Jan 20 19:21:13 UTC 2009


On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Jonathan Worthington
<jonathan at jnthn.net> wrote:
> chromatic wrote:
>> On Monday 19 January 2009 14:13:22 Bob Rogers wrote:
>>
>>> Do you think that would be fast enough?  The usual way for dynamic
>>> languages to get fast compiled numeric code is to bind variables to
>>> hardware types at compile time, and then inline numeric operations in
>>> order to use that information.  That seems to require op_i_i_i and
>>> op_n_n_n versions of these ops, which are not language-dependent.
>>>
>>
>> I don't see how Parrot can be fast enough in general without JIT.  With JIT, if these ops are implemented in terms of other ops, there's no speed penalty.
>>
>>
> I think one criteria to consider is, are their architectures out there
> (that we're targeting now or likely to) that have the equivalent op
> implemented at a CPU instruction level, such that we could JIT it in the
> future? If so, there's probably benefit in it staying a Parrot op.
>
> Jonathan
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev
>

I would rather defer that until we actually target those OSes; let's
stick with our core platforms for now (especially since we don't even
support JIT on all of our core platforms.)

-- 
Will "Coke" Coleda


More information about the parrot-dev mailing list