<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 01/14/2015 02:33 PM, David Blaikie
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAENS6EtOojs1bvvK8hhchGBZ1u1pdBWxtrbpDTftA_iR2i_71A@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Lang
Hames <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:lhames@gmail.com" target="_blank">lhames@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">Hi Dave,
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote"><span class="">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote"><span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>To confirm - I have no
plans to remove MCJIT. I
don't want to change any
behavior for existing
clients. The new stuff is
opt-in.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</span>
<div><br>
Why not? We did work to remove the
legacy JIT in favor of MCJIT for the
usual reasons (less code/maintenance
burden/etc) - it'd seem unfortunate to
then go back to maintaining two JITs
again.<br>
<br>
You mention the intent to provide a
superset of MCJIT's behavior, at which
point it seems it'd be preferable to
kill of MCJIT in favor of ORC (heck,
we killed of the legacy JIT before
MCJIT had feature parity).<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
</span>
<div>Not having plans at the moment doesn't
preclude making plans in the future, it's just
premature to think about replacing MCJIT when
the "replacement" hasn't even been submitted to
llvm-commits yet. :)</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
Not necessarily - it doesn't seem unreasonable to make a
plan to ensure we don't end up with duplicate
functionality to debug/test/fix indefinitely before adding
the duplicate. Seems to be common in the project to make
replacements, introduce them as an alternative but with an
explicit goal/plan from the start that this is not a
perpetual state. (for example, Chandler's pass manager
work and I think most of the bits that Chandler's
rewritten (shuffling, inlining, etc) were this way - maybe
there are counterexamples where similar/duplicate
functionality was introduced without such a goal, but none
come to my mind)<br>
<br>
But I dunno, maybe other people find that to be an OK
state of affairs, I'm not a code owner/authority in
much/any of this.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
As a user of the JIT, I am *very* strongly in favour of Lang's
espoused position. <br>
<br>
p.s. I don't think we know what the "right" interface is for the JIT
yet. Until we do, having multiple interfaces (with a single shared
implementation, based on the rest of LLVM) seems entirely reasonable
and appropriate. <br>
<br>
p.p.s. If Lang was proposing the replacement of MCJIT - he's not! -
the review barrier would be far far higher. He'd have to satisfy
all existing - well, all vocal - users of the old interface that his
new one met their needs. This would be a much slower process and we
want to let things evolve more quickly than that. We *don't* want
to be looking at an old-JIT retirement v2. That took literally
years and blocked a lot of useful work on the JIT infrastructure. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAENS6EtOojs1bvvK8hhchGBZ1u1pdBWxtrbpDTftA_iR2i_71A@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
- David<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>The bar for transitioning is higher now, since
MCJIT has more substantial clients than the legacy
JIT had. The impetus for transitioning is also
lower: The legacy JIT required a lot of custom
infrastructure to be kept around. MCJIT is much
more lightweight, and shares most of its
foundation (RuntimeDyld) with Orc.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>If MCJITReplacement reaches full feature and
performance parity with MCJIT (which I do
actually want to see), and the transition can be
done either transparently (by having
ExecutionEngineBuilder return an
MCJITReplacement instead of an MCJIT), or in a
manual way that all clients are happy to buy
into, then I'd be ok with deprecating and
eventually removing MCJIT. That's a discussion
for the future though.</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So clients should rest easy: We just went
through a difficult transition from the legacy
JIT, and I don't want to put you through that
again any time soon.</div>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- Lang.</div>
</font></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>