[gambit-list] scheme on llvm

lowly coder lowlycoder at huoyanjinjing.com
Sun Feb 15 17:32:16 EST 2009


I can't make any promises -- initially, I was interested in it as an
intellectual exercise; but Marc beat me to it by having students implement
it already (maybe this is why being a Professor is useful).

But if you don't mind posting the code, it'd be great -- the next time I'm
procrastinating, instead of watching the latest TV shows on hulu.com, maybe
I can fire up gambit on llvm.

Thanks!

On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Arnaud Bergeron <abergeron at gmail.com>wrote:

> 2009/2/15 Arnaud Bergeron <abergeron at gmail.com>:
> > 2009/2/15 Marc Feeley <feeley at iro.umontreal.ca>:
> >>
> >> 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
> >
> > We did a partial back-end for Gambit using LLVM and were just a little
> > bit faster for the benchmarks I tried.  Although, in all cases the
> > speed difference could well be credited to some part not being
> > implemented properly and thus requiring less work.
>
> I forgot to mention, but what we did was using LLVM 2.3.  2.5 is about
> to be released now and has a lot of improvements over 2.3.
>
> > I have some plans to take the implementation in another direction, to
> > ease the expression of the various gambit back-end statements.  I have
> > not done any work on this yet.  As for the code we did, it is
> > incomplete, but I have no objection to it being posted on the dumping
> > grounds, but I have no place to host it.  I can send you the code if
> > you are interested.
> >
> > Also, the back-end we did was only for static compiling.  Although
> > once I get back in it and maybe get it to work solidly, it could be
> > used for gsi too.  Don't hold your breath for now though.
> >
> > Arnaud
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.iro.umontreal.ca/pipermail/gambit-list/attachments/20090215/58d12cb5/attachment.htm>


More information about the Gambit-list mailing list