Mercurial > repo

comparison paste/paste.28983 @ 1232:5b377dc03f48

Find changesets by keywords (author, files, the commit message), revision number or hash, or revset expression.
<shachaf> pastelogs JIT
author HackBot
date Thu, 03 Jan 2013 21:21:27 +0000
parents
children
comparison
equal deleted inserted replaced
1231:01aa09301acf 1232:5b377dc03f48
1 2004-05-27.txt:21:29:16: <mooz-> and a JIT style intepreter would have to do a lot of processing to deal with self-modification
2 2004-09-13.txt:11:30:57: <fizzie> the "jit-compiling" one?
3 2005-05-07.txt:11:44:08: <fizzie> If you just want to run an interpreter, you could do it with binfmt_misc. JIT-compilation of brainf*ck code to native, in the kernel, would rule, though. :p
4 2005-06-09.txt:09:47:30: <calamari> cool.. my Java install was broken.. even http://kidsquid.com/EsoShell works in IE6 now.. boy is Sun Java slow compared to the Microsoft JIT.. took about 10 minutes to load the applet in qemu
5 2005-07-24.txt:20:06:04: <{^Raven^}> what about a JIT interpreter?
6 2005-07-24.txt:20:10:36: <jix> dynamic recompiling? jit compiling?
7 2005-07-24.txt:20:10:45: <jix> vm's often jit compile
8 2005-07-24.txt:20:11:30: <jix> dynamic recompiling is a special form of jit compiling
9 2005-07-24.txt:22:56:32: <jix> that's like jit compiling
10 2005-07-24.txt:22:57:46: <jix> if you compile all loops as soon as they get executed it's real jit compiling if you always translate the next n instructions it's dynamic recompiling
11 2005-07-25.txt:20:56:28: <jix> GregorR: but you could call it jiting interpreter...
12 2005-07-25.txt:20:56:28: <jix> GregorR: a jit-compiler compiles a routine before it gets executed.. bf code has no subroutines so you may call it jit-compiling ;)
13 2005-07-27.txt:23:14:34: <jix> creates egobfc2m binaries? or does it "jit" compiling?
14 2005-07-27.txt:23:14:48: <GregorR> egobfc2m is jit-ish.
15 2005-07-28.txt:23:49:05: <pgimeno> anyway, GregorR, I was just kidding; I like the idea of having a kind-of-JIT for BF
16 2005-07-28.txt:23:53:59: <jix> i'd like to combine my optimizations with your jit-a-like interpreter
17 2005-09-16.txt:05:33:08: <twobitsprite> I know they're working on a JIT, but that's hardly the same...
18 2005-10-15.txt:14:05:34: <jix> and my interpreter uses cool jit compiling technologies (called eval ;) )
19 2005-10-19.txt:23:13:55: <GregorR> Mainly the JIT part.
20 2005-12-01.txt:16:26:12: <nooga> have someone ever tried to write JIT VM ?
21 2006-01-15.txt:23:58:09: <GregorR-L> EgoBF also has a compiler and a JIT compiler.
22 2006-01-19.txt:23:27:27: <GregorR-L> It's part of my EgoBF suite, a JIT compiler for BF.
23 2006-03-02.txt:16:14:08: <SimonRC> qemu basically JITs things
24 2006-08-24.txt:22:38:24: <Arrogant> It has a JIT compiler.
25 2006-08-26.txt:22:18:51: <pikhq> You idjit. . .
26 2006-08-27.txt:20:23:29: <GregorR> JIT = teh rawx
27 2006-10-23.txt:21:33:41: <GregorR-L> OH, that's not a backronym you idjit >_<
28 2006-10-25.txt:02:54:37: <twobitsprite> it's sad when a _webpage_ will jitter and sputter on my computer
29 2006-12-31.txt:03:22:36: <GregorR> The kernel should have interpreters (perhaps JIT) for Glass, BF, etc)
30 2006-12-31.txt:20:47:33: <GregorR> Of course it's written in C ya' bloody idjits :P
31 2007-06-22.txt:23:08:54: <Sukoshi> Nah. Lisp is JIT compiled.
32 2007-06-22.txt:23:09:37: <RodgerTheGreat> JIT is effectively the same as interpreted from a workflow perspective- it's just an abstraction layer that makes things more zippy
33 2007-07-11.txt:01:30:36: <lament> nice, JIT compilation provided by oklopol :D
34 2007-09-14.txt:18:46:02: <_D6Gregor1RFeZi> http://images.google.com/images?q=fujitsu+stylistic+1200
35 2007-10-14.txt:00:34:10: <GregorR> I'd like to imagine something that could be implemented in a JIT.
36 2007-10-27.txt:23:04:28: <ehird`> python is slow, lua's "end"s are ugly (but it is very fast, more so with luajit)...
37 2007-10-29.txt:20:39:08: <bartw> hmz, maybe you should try jitting the bf
38 2007-11-26.txt:20:42:11: <bsmntbombdood> so when i do, i'm all nervous and jittery for the rest of the day
39 2008-03-07.txt:16:21:41: <AnMaster> possibly you could do some JIT optimization, like say, pre-compile paths or something
40 2008-03-07.txt:22:19:15: <SimonRC> mmmm, jit
41 2008-03-07.txt:22:19:25: <oklopol> "jit"?
42 2008-03-07.txt:22:19:33: <SimonRC> oops, JIT
43 2008-03-11.txt:19:24:15: <AnMaster> Deewiant, well JITs does work around it
44 2008-03-13.txt:18:32:20: <AnMaster> oklopol, JIT should be possible
45 2008-03-13.txt:18:34:38: <lament> jit
46 2008-03-13.txt:18:36:07: <lament> that's JIT
47 2008-03-13.txt:18:38:33: <lament> with befunge you can do either threaded code or JIT
48 2008-03-14.txt:00:13:48: <lament> or jit
49 2008-03-14.txt:00:19:31: <oklokok> lament: when the code is modified, it's trivial to fix the stack+goto based form, compilation to python can be done jit then.
50 2008-03-14.txt:02:44:01: <AnMaster> oklo, so JIT I assume?
51 2008-03-14.txt:03:13:27: <oklo> - make a befunge compiler without an existing program that needs jit compilation
52 2008-03-14.txt:03:14:17: <oklo> - make a befunge compiler without an existing program that needs jit compilation
53 2008-03-14.txt:03:19:25: <AnMaster> oklo, but one without JIT?
54 2008-03-14.txt:03:20:03: <oklo> AnMaster: well, i don't even have the possibility of jit in my current one
55 2008-03-14.txt:03:20:04: <AnMaster> oklo, basically it is impossible to design a befunge compiler that does NOT need jit
56 2008-03-14.txt:03:20:15: <AnMaster> sure for most common cases you can do reparsing/ijit
57 2008-03-14.txt:03:20:17: <AnMaster> jit*
58 2008-03-16.txt:14:59:34: <AnMaster> so a JIT wouldn't help much
59 2008-03-16.txt:18:39:23: <AnMaster> Deewiant, btw I've been thinking of some kind of JIT for some things, but I think they may end up slower, ie. caching the matching ; for a ; and such
60 2008-03-16.txt:18:46:57: <AnMaster> something that can be JIT compiled or so
61 2008-03-17.txt:22:20:02: <SimonRC> you could jit stuff
62 2008-03-17.txt:22:20:45: <SimonRC> if a region is executed a lot with no change, JIT it, but look out for changes to an "dependents" the region has
63 2008-03-17.txt:22:23:23: <AnMaster> SimonRC, JIT would mean compile to machine code?
64 2008-03-17.txt:22:24:34: <SimonRC> AnMaster: so how to JVMs do JITting?
65 2008-03-17.txt:22:26:34: <SimonRC> wait, you want me to do something 1000 JMV and .NET engineers can't and produce a protable JITter?
66 2008-03-17.txt:22:27:38: <AnMaster> ais523, right, but how would that work for JIT?
67 2008-03-17.txt:22:28:12: <ais523> hmm... for JIT you'd probably have to precompile some example asm
68 2008-03-17.txt:22:32:20: <AnMaster> anyway it doesn't make sense for a JIT as far as I can see
69 2008-04-03.txt:11:09:41: <AnMaster> and JIT
70 2008-04-04.txt:20:59:34: <RodgerTheGreat> <3 optimistic JIT compilation
71 2008-04-04.txt:21:04:26: <RodgerTheGreat> GregorR: Did you know that $YOUR_FAVORITE_DYNAMIC_LANGUAGE probably doesn't JIT as fast as HotSpot can?
72 2008-04-04.txt:21:04:59: <GregorR> $MY_FAVORITE_DYNAMIC_LANGUAGE doesn't have a JIT as-is :P
73 2008-04-14.txt:19:34:31: <SimonRC> JITted javascript?
74 2008-04-14.txt:19:36:06: <SimonRC> mmm, partially-precompiled JITted Javascript with big fat libraries
75 2008-06-16.txt:09:39:38: <GregorR> I wrote a JIT MIPS->JavaScript compiler (in JavaScript) ... does that make me a bad person? D-8
76 2008-06-16.txt:16:01:20: <tusho> 01:39:38 <GregorR> I wrote a JIT MIPS->JavaScript compiler (in JavaScript) ... does that make me a bad person? D-8
77 2008-06-16.txt:20:30:52: <GregorR> (But hey, now it has a JIT and read()!)
78 2008-06-17.txt:16:06:44: <tusho> it even JITs it
79 2008-06-27.txt:16:30:38: <AnMaster> ais523, what about JITing?
80 2008-06-27.txt:16:30:48: * AnMaster has pondered JIT of befunge for quite some time
81 2008-06-27.txt:16:30:58: <AnMaster> but JIT is unportable
82 2008-06-27.txt:16:37:34: <AnMaster> <AnMaster> ais523, what about JITing?
83 2008-06-27.txt:16:37:34: <AnMaster> * AnMaster has pondered JIT of befunge for quite some time
84 2008-06-27.txt:16:37:34: <AnMaster> <AnMaster> but JIT is unportable
85 2008-06-27.txt:16:38:04: <ais523> and I thought JIT was a compilation technique, so how can it be unportable?
86 2008-07-05.txt:09:25:37: <AnMaster> I think it could be possible to JIT it though
87 2008-07-05.txt:09:25:54: <Slereah_> JIT?
88 2008-07-05.txt:09:26:19: <AnMaster> Slereah_, JIT compile it
89 2008-07-07.txt:21:55:13: <AnMaster> is it JITTING?!
90 2008-07-07.txt:21:55:18: <ais523> AnMaster: worse than jitting
91 2008-07-07.txt:21:55:23: <AnMaster> worse than jitting?
92 2008-08-07.txt:20:12:49: <olsner> user-space that is, basically just a normal linux kernel, a hardware-specific llvm jit interpreter, and then every binary is just llvm bitcode files
93 2008-08-08.txt:20:44:52: <AnMaster> tusho, well.. you could probably JIT befunge quite well
94 2008-08-08.txt:23:08:49: * pikhq wants to make a JITing brainfuck interpreter now... :p
95 2008-08-24.txt:00:04:00: <AnMaster> ZP02S1sQL6XvaUSK3J6hGb5WKXjIrC4lVweYsYd6G6yQVzVfVzOThzUxOuP9vOJUqVKLhFcTs1smP0OK4Jb54NhWNVB1pWARt1EBsQo4iuGXZ9A3ICozTNeSsTzYznVygfJEwKuJOVd7xbMJItHYZu1vy7pXp87BEIqRyF3SSVk6Utne2SGVrv36VTeqR7ThBeMP45olUtZOapRSDP9BrkWbRuttjjhaTFK13D0dZXl7hT7LRvZ5Koi2zMRqX6s4ewxxXIToTDb0TlgwM5oEdo7fI3WErmOIYo3423n042IfJT87ecR51HySeCUBWOPc4xCliNSyloM6scQrwMMJxtDxK7THJbmBKgrDJKQecFiI1zMtdtZHNLQf1XfaADXHVKTUwNjSCHEg1bNqAoEc
96 2008-09-01.txt:19:18:21: <AnMaster> oh btw I was thinking of generating code at runtime, using JIT with LLVM, could be rather interesting
97 2008-09-01.txt:19:18:29: <AnMaster> I think JITing funge would work
98 2008-09-05.txt:19:57:42: <AnMaster> tusho, my other idea: Befunge: you could probably JIT it
99 2008-09-05.txt:19:58:34: <AnMaster> tusho, can't find the word JIT there?
100 2008-09-05.txt:19:59:07: <AnMaster> threaded code != JIT
101 2008-09-05.txt:20:00:24: <AnMaster> and it is not JIT really for B98
102 2008-09-05.txt:20:04:00: <AnMaster> tusho, it could use some JIT framework to do it...
103 2008-09-08.txt:19:38:42: <tusho> you'd all be jittering about quickly while nothing happens
104 2008-09-17.txt:22:07:30: <AnMaster> I think you could JIT it though
105 2008-09-22.txt:10:20:45: <AnMaster> you could JIT it
106 2008-09-22.txt:10:28:18: <AnMaster> there is also a JIT for it iirc
107 2008-09-22.txt:10:29:31: <AnMaster> llvm byte code is more or less platform independent. You can then either interpret it (it JITs it) or you can compile it into machine code and link it to a binary
108 2008-09-22.txt:19:01:01: <AnMaster> ais523, yes. Except I have seriously considered adding JIT using llvm or similiar to cfunge
109 2008-09-23.txt:18:14:48: <ais523> sort of like JIT debugging but even crazier
110 2008-09-26.txt:23:15:20: <ais523> it's a bit like JIT compilation, just stupider
111 2008-10-02.txt:21:40:18: <AnMaster> ais523, anyway llvm allows generating native code, or jit byte code
112 2008-10-06.txt:20:02:43: <ehird> ais523: jit
113 2008-10-06.txt:20:03:16: <GregorR> (It's not strictly JIT since BF has no functions, so the whole thing is compiled at once, but it's about as close as you can get :P )
114 2008-10-11.txt:14:10:22: <oerjan> so no JIT?
115 2008-10-12.txt:01:31:12: <comex> (If only the translator could translate itself... I don't think it's rpython though. But if the translator can get the JIT to be fast someday, and a fast JITted pypy runs the translator... well then that's pretty amazing)
116 2008-10-29.txt:21:47:44: <fizzie> If I really wanted to make fungot fast, I'd run it with some JITting system; it doesn't ever do any self-modification, and really only uses cardinal directions, so static code analysis + constant-folding + JIT complication should make it fearsomely fast.
117 2008-10-29.txt:22:56:55: <fizzie> Didn't I just say about using JIT with fungot? :p
118 2008-10-29.txt:22:57:20: <ais523> fizzie: this would be compile-time, not JIT
119 2008-10-29.txt:23:01:28: <Asztal> a tracing jit might be easier
120 2008-11-03.txt:12:26:08: <oklon> static typing is basically only an issue when you're jitting the code.
121 2008-11-05.txt:20:13:38: <fizzie> fis@eris:~/src/jitfunge$ build/jitfunge test.b98
122 2008-11-05.txt:20:14:20: <AnMaster> fizzie, JIT to native code?
123 2008-11-05.txt:20:27:17: <AnMaster> ehird, this jit I mean...
124 2008-11-05.txt:20:31:21: <ehird> it's jit
125 2008-11-05.txt:20:32:47: <AnMaster> as it is jitting you would probably generate optimised linear code
126 2008-11-05.txt:20:41:02: <fizzie> There's a tarball at http://zem.fi/~fis/jitfunge-export.tar.gz but don't expect anything actually working, or any support whatsoever, or even that it'd work on a non-Linux box; I think there's a mremap call in there, I'm not sure how well-supported that is. (Easy to eliminate, though.)
127 2008-11-05.txt:20:43:21: <AnMaster> src/parser.cc: In constructor 'jitfunge::Trace_impl::opargs::opargs()':
128 2008-11-05.txt:20:52:38: <AnMaster> jitfunge jittool
129 2008-11-05.txt:20:52:45: <fizzie> Incidentally, the scons script should generate both jitfunge and jittool; the 'jitfunge' part is the interpreter (such at it is) but the jittool is maybe more interesting.
130 2008-11-05.txt:20:53:10: <fizzie> The jittool one takes file (plus optional four integers, x y dx dy) and generates + compiles a single trace, then dumps the generated code.
131 2008-11-05.txt:20:54:52: <AnMaster> #3 0x08054749 in jitfunge::AsmFunction::operator() (this=0x841b058) at src/codegen.hh:274
132 2008-11-05.txt:21:47:49: <fizzie> fis@eris:~/src/jitfunge$ cat test.b98
133 2008-11-05.txt:21:47:49: <fizzie> fis@eris:~/src/jitfunge$ build/jitfunge test.b98
134 2008-11-05.txt:21:51:45: <pikhq> ... Funging JIT?
135 2008-11-05.txt:21:51:52: <ehird> pikhq: yes, befunge-98 jit
136 2008-11-05.txt:21:52:17: <fizzie> It's not like jitfunge really does anything very -98y yet, though.
137 2008-11-05.txt:21:57:29: <ehird> and presumably jitfunge
138 2008-11-05.txt:22:05:12: <AnMaster> /home/arvid/local/llvm/bin/llvm-g++ -o build/jitfunge -m32 -ggdb build/main.o build/codegen.o build/interp.o build/parser.o build/space.o
139 2008-11-05.txt:22:22:14: <AnMaster> src/parser.cc:63: warning: missing initializer for member 'jitfunge::StackChange::flush'
140 2008-11-05.txt:22:22:15: <AnMaster> src/parser.cc:63: warning: missing initializer for member 'jitfunge::StackChange::in'
141 2008-11-06.txt:10:39:53: <AnMaster> but for JIT that may not help a lot
142 2008-11-06.txt:13:09:33: <AnMaster> src/interp.cc: In constructor 'jitfunge::Stack::Stack()':
143 2008-11-06.txt:14:12:34: <fizzie> You can run it as "jitfunge file.b98 -d" to make it dump the traces it generates.
144 2008-11-06.txt:14:13:50: <comex> oh god jitfunge
145 2008-11-06.txt:14:36:03: <fizzie> (build/jitfunge life.bf > life.txt &); sleep 20 ; killall jitfunge ; ls -l life.txt generates around 8.5 megabytes of output, compared to ~2.7 megs from cfunge (32bit, -O3, no fancy flags), here. I'm not sure jitfunge is in a benchmarkable state yet, though.
146 2008-11-06.txt:14:42:15: <AnMaster> fizzie, well for me both generates around 5 MB, sometimes slightly more for cfunge, sometimes more for jitfunge
147 2008-11-06.txt:14:44:49: <AnMaster> 5 mb from jitfunge, around 1.8 from cfunge
148 2008-11-06.txt:14:45:10: <AnMaster> fizzie, however I don't know how large setup time jitfunge needs. cfunge have quite a bit of setup time
149 2008-11-06.txt:14:50:36: <fizzie> There's quite a lot of small code snippets generated for life.bf, increasing the overhead there. Every time there's a branch or a merging of two code paths, jitfunge splits the code to separate functions there.
150 2008-11-06.txt:14:51:31: <jix> you try to jit compile befunge?
151 2008-11-06.txt:14:52:26: <AnMaster> "you to jit compile befunge"?
152 2008-11-06.txt:15:00:19: <fizzie> Given that it's JIT, I should probably be collecting some statistics and doing branch prediction that way.
153 2008-11-06.txt:15:14:04: <AnMaster> fizzie, if you discard some jitted code, and the jitted code is placed in a mmaped region, how do you allocate new ones, try to find the first hole large enough?
154 2008-11-06.txt:19:01:26: <fizzie> Meh, sensiblized the code generated by jitfunge, and managed to cut life.bf performance into 4 % (variant 1) or 30 % (variant 2) of what it used to be; the new system does generate longer pieces of code, but it ends up recompiling something all the time. I need a figure out a less complicated test case for the issue, though.
155 2008-11-06.txt:20:25:34: <fizzie> The jitfunge stack grows up, but that's pretty arbitrary.
156 2008-11-06.txt:20:41:03: <fizzie> This week I've been mostly writing jitfunge. :p
157 2008-11-07.txt:06:48:35: <fizzie> Oh, wow... added -O3 to the build arguments in jitfunge just to see if the compiler affects the speed at all. life.bf speed jumped from 10 megs / 20 seconds -> 37 megs / 20 seconds. Even though it doesn't really change the generated code at all. Should profile the beast a bit, I guess.
158 2008-11-07.txt:13:30:25: <fizzie> fis@eris:~/src/jitfunge$ cat test.b98
159 2008-11-07.txt:13:30:25: <fizzie> fis@eris:~/src/jitfunge$ build/jitfunge test.b98
160 2008-11-08.txt:00:51:18: <fizzie> I don't think I'm in any condition to work on jitfunge right now.
161 2008-11-09.txt:17:18:18: <AnMaster> fizzie, question: does jitfunge handle x?
162 2008-11-09.txt:19:19:15: <ehird> jit
163 2008-11-09.txt:19:19:52: * SimonRC doesn't know anything about jitting
164 2008-11-09.txt:19:34:27: <fizzie> ("function" here meaning I JIT-compile things into callable functions; of course there's no functions in the Befunge code.)
165 2008-11-09.txt:21:29:14: <fizzie> I sort of do a "stack-language to registery machine" thing with jitfunge, given that the input is Befunge and the output is x86 code.
166 2008-11-10.txt:11:52:27: <fizzie> Incidentally, jitfunge seems to be able to run underload.b98 now; still woefully incomplete, and don't really have free time to work on it, though.
167 2008-11-10.txt:15:11:39: <AnMaster> fizzie, any updates to jitfunge?
168 2008-11-10.txt:17:25:35: <ehird> ais523: it's a befunge-98 JIT
169 2008-11-11.txt:14:12:01: <fizzie> Tried to compile jitfunge on OS X, but I get a "no return statement in function returning non-void" error (-Werror) from the C++ system header <tr1/hashtable>. Not nice.
170 2008-11-12.txt:17:53:40: <fizzie> I should fix jitfunge's mycology regression.
171 2008-11-12.txt:17:53:56: <ais523> how far through mycology does jitfunge get?
172 2008-11-12.txt:18:03:28: <fizzie> It's still already 384 lines of output with jitfunge's "-d" flag; I'd like something that generates only one or two compiled sort-of-functions so I can just disassemble them and see what goes wrong.
173 2008-11-12.txt:18:48:01: <Deewiant> jitfunge is, I think, C, if that's what you meant
174 2008-11-12.txt:19:18:25: <fizzie> Hah, that was a funny jitfunge bug; when adding the 'IF' operation it didn't clear the constant-folding-stack, so something like 1#$_ would add "push 1" to the op list, then "if", then see the $ (since it branch-predicts true always) and remove the "push 1" because it thought it was discarding a constant.
175 2008-11-12.txt:19:34:01: <fizzie> Substituting the -O3 flag with -ggdb did nothing, but it's funny how I get different output from "build/jitfunge mycology.b98" than "build/jitfunge mycology.b98 | cat".
176 2008-11-12.txt:19:57:34: <fizzie> Somehow I'm not too surprised jitfunge doesn't play nice with valgrind.
177 2008-11-15.txt:21:09:57: <Asztal> GregorR: apparently you found a way to break Firefox 3.1's JIT, well done :D
178 2008-11-17.txt:21:21:44: <AnMaster> why not JIT it into pure perl
179 2008-11-17.txt:21:24:23: <ais523> I'm not entirely sure JITting it into pure Perl makes a whole lot of sense
180 2008-11-17.txt:21:26:08: <AnMaster> then JIT the perl into C which you JIT into native code?
181 2008-11-17.txt:21:26:28: <ais523> does Perl JIT into C?
182 2008-11-18.txt:19:15:05: <fizzie> I do that in jitfunge.
183 2008-11-18.txt:19:17:21: <fizzie> I have a very preliminary tarball of jitfunge in the web, but that's really not a pleasant thing to read.
184 2008-11-18.txt:19:17:22: <ais523> fizzie: doesn't jitfunge do something like that?
185 2008-11-18.txt:19:19:03: <fizzie> http://zem.fi/~fis/jitfunge-export.tar.gz if I recall the URL correctly.
186 2008-11-18.txt:19:23:14: <fizzie> It's there in the "AsmFunction" class if you want to look at how jitfunge does it.
187 2008-11-23.txt:22:29:52: <AnMaster> fizzie, how goes jitfunge?
188 2008-11-23.txt:22:38:06: <fizzie> AnMaster: Well, feel free to, but that's what I've been doing instead of jitfunge.
189 2008-11-29.txt:00:24:54: <GregorR> nooga: It's slowish ... but I have a JIT >: )
190 2008-11-29.txt:06:58:22: * GregorR just improved the JIT ... it's a bit faster now.
191 2008-12-03.txt:14:36:15: <AnMaster> fizzie, any progress on jitfunge?
192 2008-12-28.txt:17:21:12: <AnMaster> as far as I know I currently beat all except jitfunge
193 2008-12-28.txt:17:21:24: <AnMaster> and last I heard jitfunge wasn't complete
194 2008-12-30.txt:20:50:05: <AnMaster> fizzie, there? Any progress on jitfunge?
195 2009-01-04.txt:19:34:54: <AnMaster> ais523, sure, what about proving a jit compiler!
196 2009-01-05.txt:10:16:46: <AnMaster> fizzie, progress on jitfunge?
197 2009-01-07.txt:09:58:29: <AnMaster> something for jitfunge rather
198 2009-01-07.txt:20:48:27: <AnMaster> ehird, I don't know if jitfunge works on os x
199 2009-01-07.txt:20:49:06: <ehird> I'd hardly expect a jit to be portable :P
200 2009-01-07.txt:20:49:42: <fizzie> jitfunge doesn't, at the moment; although it might with some tweaking.
201 2009-01-07.txt:20:50:25: <fizzie> We did some speed-benchmarking with something like (build/jitfunge life.bf > life.txt &); sleep 20 ; killall jitfunge ; ls -l life.txt and then comparing the life.txt output size. Silly but... silly.
202 2009-01-07.txt:21:03:44: <fizzie> "originally designed and programmed by Alexey Pajitnov in June 1985, while working for the Dorodnicyn Computing Centre of the Academy of Science of the USSR in Moscow."
203 2009-01-08.txt:16:51:43: <fizzie> jitfunge uses a fixed-address mmap.
204 2009-01-09.txt:17:28:34: <AnMaster> if you want to JIT stuff you probably need to use the API
205 2009-01-09.txt:17:38:21: <ehird> Also has a JIT
206 2009-01-09.txt:17:38:40: <AnMaster> so it uses a custom written JIT for x86 and x86_64 (it says so in README)
207 2009-01-09.txt:17:39:16: <AnMaster> and the JIT actually works?
208 2009-01-09.txt:17:39:40: <AnMaster> writing a good JIT takes time, lots of time
209 2009-01-09.txt:17:41:26: <ehird> so he's developed a prototype with a working jit in less than a month.
210 2009-01-09.txt:17:42:05: <AnMaster> ehird, well I can believe someone managed to write a well working JIT in less than a month if he was dedicated, and a OO lang... But both? No way
211 2009-01-09.txt:17:58:18: <AnMaster> ehird, writing your own JIT?
212 2009-01-11.txt:18:26:54: <AnMaster> flexo, iirc fizzie traps segfault in jitfunge
213 2009-01-13.txt:18:58:10: <AnMaster> ehird, also I admit jitfunge is faster
214 2009-01-13.txt:19:03:18: <AnMaster> I admit that jit compilers like jitfunge are faster
215 2009-01-13.txt:19:27:31: <AnMaster> ehird, also if you decide to jit I'm not going to care, I don't have the time to add jitting to cfunge currently, no idea about later
216 2009-01-13.txt:19:28:26: <oerjan> it's the jitterbug
217 2009-01-14.txt:15:21:50: <ais523> (and then fizzie went and invented jitfunge, just for even more crazy-speed funge fun)
218 2009-01-14.txt:15:45:15: <AnMaster> hm, this would be one thing that is easier in a JIT I believe
219 2009-01-14.txt:15:45:32: <ais523> well, JITs need to do that anyway
220 2009-01-14.txt:15:46:08: <ais523> doesn't mean you can't do it in a non-JIT
221 2009-01-18.txt:14:28:27: <ehird> then I think I'll make it a compiler/jit and write it totally in scheme and stuff
222 2009-01-18.txt:14:54:23: <ehird> second version - compiler & JIT
223 2009-01-18.txt:14:57:30: <AnMaster> ehird, you said compiler/jit?
224 2009-01-18.txt:14:58:22: <AnMaster> instead of jit
225 2009-01-18.txt:14:59:06: <AnMaster> ehird, basically: will it jit or be able to compile stand alone binaries?
226 2009-01-24.txt:22:15:29: <ktne> i don't feel like wanting to implement a JIT :)
227 2009-01-28.txt:14:23:55: <AnMaster> ehird, also I wonder how fast it would run game of life? as fast as jitfunge?
228 2009-02-10.txt:15:00:45: <ktne> i plan to run it using a llvm jit
229 2009-02-21.txt:20:42:41: <comex> jit
230 2009-02-21.txt:23:40:50: <ehird> but it's more jit-style
231 2009-02-26.txt:12:10:54: <AnMaster> fizzie, in jitfunge, which way does the stack grow?
232 2009-02-26.txt:12:21:18: <fizzie> Actually, heh, I don't think current jitfunge even grows the stack at all. Haven't touched that code in a while, but all I'm seeing here are the underflow checks.
233 2009-02-27.txt:16:17:41: <ais523> ehird: JIT?
234 2009-02-27.txt:16:17:52: <AnMaster> well JIT is a solution of course
235 2009-02-27.txt:16:17:58: <ehird> ais523: it is JIT, kind of
236 2009-02-27.txt:16:18:00: <ais523> I would certainly suggest JITted constant folding
237 2009-02-27.txt:16:18:17: <ehird> kind of like JIT
238 2009-02-27.txt:16:18:30: <AnMaster> ais523, that is AOT not JIT right?
239 2009-02-27.txt:16:19:54: <AnMaster> ehird, I think JIT with constant fold, and if +- and such are redefined invalidate all JIT compiled code using it
240 2009-02-27.txt:16:21:50: <ais523> maybe you could use some sort of JIT constant unfolding?
241 2009-02-27.txt:16:22:16: <AnMaster> you wouldn't JIT it again directly
242 2009-02-27.txt:16:22:28: <ehird> I just told you I'm not JITting
243 2009-02-27.txt:16:22:44: <AnMaster> JITing is probably better for this though...
244 2009-02-27.txt:16:23:13: <AnMaster> but the Java JIT can do inlining and such
245 2009-02-27.txt:16:23:44: <AnMaster> ehird, well mark a unit as "need to be-rejitted on next use" then
246 2009-02-27.txt:16:24:06: <AnMaster> fizzie, there? Will jitfunge implement IMAP? :D
247 2009-03-06.txt:14:54:09: <AnMaster> fizzie, will jitfunge implement IMAP?
248 2009-03-06.txt:14:54:51: <fizzie> I don't think so, no. I'm currently again in the hibernationary "collecting motivation" stage re jitfunge.
249 2009-03-08.txt:13:47:22: <AnMaster> Deewiant, it is a bad idea to make sarcastic comments about cfunge. You won't have anything left to say for jitfunge then
250 2009-03-08.txt:14:01:16: <AnMaster> Deewiant, anyway I think fizzie isn't working on jitfunge currently
251 2009-03-10.txt:14:53:58: <AnMaster> ehird, well it all depends on what you are using it for. fungot running a slow underload interpreter? cfunge or in the future jitfunge
252 2009-03-10.txt:14:58:32: <AnMaster> Deewiant, no, jitfunge is more optimised
253 2009-03-10.txt:14:58:40: <ehird> uh, jitfunge doesn't optimize.
254 2009-03-10.txt:14:59:29: <AnMaster> ehird, well depending on what you mean, nor does cfunge. jitfunge could potentially. Just in cfunge I tried to write all the C code fast. But I don't try to constant fold code. Like jitfunge does
255 2009-03-10.txt:14:59:38: <AnMaster> so I'd say jitfunge is more optimising
256 2009-03-10.txt:14:59:55: <fizzie> jitfunge is broken, though; that's a disadvantage.
257 2009-03-11.txt:14:21:19: -!- rabideejit has joined #esoteric.
258 2009-03-11.txt:14:21:46: <rabideejit> Greeting.
259 2009-03-11.txt:14:23:02: <rabideejit> I have a new language for you.
260 2009-03-11.txt:14:23:02: <rabideejit> Consider deciphering the contents of http://esoteric.voxelperfect.net/wiki/Kolmogorov and http://www.killersmurf.com/projects/Kolmogorov
261 2009-03-11.txt:14:25:14: <rabideejit> yes
262 2009-03-11.txt:14:25:29: <rabideejit> Aaah! It's you. You inspired me.
263 2009-03-11.txt:14:25:40: <ais523> greetings, rabideejit
264 2009-03-11.txt:14:26:01: <rabideejit> indeed you did.
265 2009-03-11.txt:14:26:22: <rabideejit> Greetings ais.
266 2009-03-11.txt:14:27:12: <rabideejit> Yes. The andrei machine is much closer to what Kolmogorov had in mind, I'd say.
267 2009-03-11.txt:14:30:21: <rabideejit> Ah, thankyou! I was looking for that. My source was Uri Gurevich's on Kolmogorov Machines and Related issues.
268 2009-03-11.txt:14:37:03: <rabideejit> Ah, the Andrei machine has an easy-to-reach register. The challenger of the Kolmogorov language is all your data is all pointing to each other and you get lost. Hence the 500 line 99 bottles of beer.
269 2009-03-11.txt:14:37:11: <rabideejit> *challenge
270 2009-03-11.txt:14:37:24: <rabideejit> Freudian there.
271 2009-03-11.txt:14:37:54: <rabideejit> Ah but I guess the Andrei register is a bit hard to reach, as you have to run through the graph to get it.
272 2009-03-11.txt:14:38:24: <rabideejit> Indeed.
273 2009-03-11.txt:14:38:52: <rabideejit> It would be crazy.
274 2009-03-11.txt:14:39:48: <rabideejit> Yes, it seems a very complex problem.
275 2009-03-11.txt:14:40:23: <rabideejit> Hmmmmm!
276 2009-03-11.txt:14:44:02: <rabideejit> hum, ho.
277 2009-03-11.txt:14:45:58: <rabideejit> I must take your leave, I need to eat some yogurt. Nice to meet you Slereah.
278 2009-03-11.txt:14:46:19: -!- rabideejit has quit ("Leaving.").
279 2009-03-11.txt:18:08:55: <ehird> our JIT is about 20x faster than CPython. ]]
280 2009-03-12.txt:11:54:53: <fizzie> I'm eagerly waiting for the next C++ sprint, I could actually work on jitfunge a bit at that point.
281 2009-03-12.txt:11:54:56: <AnMaster> jitfunge was in C++ right?
282 2009-03-12.txt:12:09:43: <fizzie> I would like to work on jitfunge more if there wasn't that damned self-modification going on. I can't even compile a constant-argument p into a simple memory store, without worrying that later the jitter is going to create a compiled trace at that location, and it will then be invalidated if this particular p instruction is ever executed.
283 2009-03-12.txt:12:15:17: <AnMaster> fizzie, also if there wasn't self modification you could just compile it normally without needing JIT
284 2009-03-12.txt:12:16:00: <fizzie> Given the funky Befunge code-flow, that's not completely trivial either; I'd still suspect a tracing JIT could be the way to go. It'd just be a lot easier.
285 2009-03-12.txt:12:16:56: <fizzie> Currently jitfunge has a "solution" which basically boils down recording in funge-space all the cells where any compiled-to-memory-store-puts refer to, and later if we end up executing code in such a place, invalidating the referring code.
286 2009-03-12.txt:14:59:34: <fizzie> Fujitsu Siemens is partially German (the Siemens side, surprisingly) and they manufacture computers.
287 2009-03-12.txt:16:01:54: <ehird> 10:54 fizzie: I'm eagerly waiting for the next C++ sprint, I could actually work on jitfunge a bit at that point.
288 2009-03-12.txt:16:01:55: <ehird> 10:54 AnMaster: jitfunge was in C++ right?
289 2009-03-13.txt:22:39:14: <AnMaster> Deewiant, well, I like NX. It is actually useful. Only JITs need to disable it really.
290 2009-03-13.txt:22:41:14: <AnMaster> Deewiant, any non-esoteric examples of self modifying code? Apart from JITs that is.
291 2009-03-15.txt:19:41:59: <AnMaster> ehird, unknown. It depends on what you do. If fizzie finishes his jitfunge he will beat cfunge at single-threaded apps
292 2009-03-15.txt:19:42:55: <AnMaster> fizzie, how do you plan to implement t in jitfunge?
293 2009-03-15.txt:19:44:09: <fizzie> I don't really have a plan there; I don't see any sensible way of doing synchronous threads with jitfunge without it being completely brainless.
294 2009-03-15.txt:21:52:42: <AnMaster> I just found something useful for you in jitfunge
295 2009-03-15.txt:22:02:39: <fizzie> The instructions they mention are SSE-only, though. And it'll be a while before I get to the optimizationary stage with jitfunge, you may need to remind me about that later.
296 2009-03-15.txt:22:05:22: <fizzie> The code generated by jitfunge is pretty sucky.
297 2009-03-15.txt:22:11:32: <fizzie> I'll have to think about the llvm thing. Currently the jitfunge code is pretty convoluted; maybe if I cleaned it up a bit so that there'd be a clean-ish-er interface between code generation and the rest of the code, I could even experiment better.
298 2009-03-15.txt:22:23:59: <AnMaster> fizzie, Concurrent JIT
299 2009-03-15.txt:22:42:15: <fizzie> I know a precious little about x86 low-level details for a JIT-writer.
300 2009-03-24.txt:22:15:24: <AnMaster> well JIT then
301 [too many lines; stopping]