[gambit-list] scheme on llvm

Marc Feeley feeley at iro.umontreal.ca
Sun Feb 15 00:53:39 EST 2009


On 15-Feb-09, at 12:47 AM, lowly coder wrote:

> this is kinda off topic, -- but people here seem really smart, so  
> I'll risk the occasional flames for good criticism + insight
>
> i think the llvm/jvm projects are really cool, since so much work is  
> put into jitting; and for one reason or another, I like llvm more  
> than jvm
>
> i'm curious about the possiblity of a high performance scheme (and  
> perhaps gambit in particular) running on llvm; where the 'initial  
> implementation' may not be all that fast ... but letting llvm jit it  
> away
>
> how does this sound? feasible for a scheme (but not gambit)? down  
> the pipes planned for gambit? or totally stupid/crazy?
>
> the 'main' advantage of this approach is that I _assume_ that the  
> llvm guys are pretty good at hacking up interpreters / jit's ... so  
> why not benefit from their constant progress :-D

I had a group of students implement a LLVM backend for Gambit in one  
of the courses I teach (compilers).  I'm CCing them.  Perhaps they can  
give you more information and add their code to the dumping grounds.   
I also had a student write a Scheme to CLR compiler which can  
bootstrap itself.

Marc




More information about the Gambit-list mailing list