[LLVMdev] Announcing: LLVM 2.9 Tentative Release Schedule

[Jan Sjodin]

----- Original Message ----
> From: Bill Wendling <bwendling at apple.com>
> To: Jan Sjodin <jan_sjodin at yahoo.com>
> Cc: Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com>; Yuri <yuri at rawbw.com>; 
>llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu
> Sent: Thu, February 24, 2011 7:27:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Announcing: LLVM 2.9 Tentative Release Schedule
> 
> On Feb 24, 2011, at 4:05 AM, Jan Sjodin wrote:
> 
> > On Feb 19, 2011, at  8:05 PM, Yuri wrote:
> >> 
> >>> On 02/19/2011 14:52,   Yuri wrote:
> >>>> Will MC path for JNI be included in  2.9?
> >>>> 
> >>> 
> >>> Sorry. I meant: Will  MC path for JIT be included in  2.9?
> >> 
> >> While it  would be nice, it doesn't seem like anyone is working on it  at 
>the  
>
> >> moment.
> >> 
> >> -Chris
> >> 
> > 
> > I have been working on my own stuff this month. This is still not  the  
>"proper" 
>
> > solution that has been proposed for MCJIT. I posted  some  patches a few 
>weeks 
>
> > ago, but since there was no response I  continued to  work anyway. I decided 
>to 
>
> > try and reuse the ELF code  emission as much as  possible to be able to run 
>gdb 
>
> > on the  generated code. By refactoring  the code for MCELFStreamer and 
> >  ELFObjectWriter I am now able to  generate code in memory and the code can  
>be 
>
> > executed and debugged with  dgb. With a bit more cleanup I  believe it is 
> > possible to get a "JIT" (it  generates code for a  whole module) with just a 
>few 
>
> > hundred lines of  code. I'm not sure  if this is what people want in general 
>but 
>
> > it works  for my  application. 
> > 
> Just a reminder:
> 
> The deadline for "new  features" is coming up (i.e., the date of the 2.9 
>branch). After branching,  there will still be time to finish up features that 
>are near complete. That  said, a longer "bake-time" for new features is 
>preferred. And at this point, it  is probably up to the various maintainers to 
>approve or reject them.
> 
> If  it's possible to turn a new feature off, that's a definite bonus. :-) 
>Because we  can then determine if we want it on or off by default without 
>affecting the 2.9  release timeframe.
> 

I can certainly start subitting patches to refactor some of the code. For 
example splitting .cpp files into .h and .cpp for classes that are needed. I 
don't know if it will go into 2.9 or not.

- Jan