vector data types support in the LLVM interpreter part 2

[Nick Lewycky]

David Tweed wrote:
> |I'm interested in deleting the llvm intepreter entirely. Are you using
> |it? Why?
>
> Obviously this is just a shot in the dark, but possibly connected with
>
> http://llvm.org/devmtg/2013-04/#talk10
>
> ?

I see.

> In connection with your general question, could you elaborate on the
> motivation
> for wanting to delete the llvm interpreter please? I can imagine it's
> obviously
> some overhead to keep it fitting as llvm internals get refactored, but is it
> sufficient that you think dropping that route is best? (I don't have any
> plans
> to make any particular use of it in the future, but it seems like it might
> be
> useful to have the possibility of using it when bringing up a new platform
> --
> with new platform specific intrinsics which it'd be harder to emulate in
> compiled code.)

It's undermaintained, and has been for a long time. For one example, 
vector types were added in LLVM 1.7, and only now we're looking at 
patches to add support for vectors to the interpreter. Also, it doesn't 
appear to offer any benefits over just using the JIT. It's unnecessarily 
slow, doesn't implement all of the instructions or intrinsics in the IR. 
It does however offer libffi integration, which is nice.

I am deeply concerned about the claim that the llvm interpreter produces 
correct results. Of all the code generators, the interpreter is the most 
likely to be wrong, as it is certainly the least tested.

Nick