Search Results

Search found 215 results on 9 pages for 'jit b'.

Page 1/9 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  | Next Page >

  • JIT compiler for C, C++, and the likes

    - by Ebrahim
    Is there any just-in-time compiler out there for compiled languages, such as C and C++? (The first names that come to mind are Clang and LLVM! But I don't think they currently support it.) Explanation: I think the software could benefit from runtime profiling feedback and aggressively optimized recompilation of hotspots at runtime, even for compiled-to-machine languages like C and C++. Profile-guided optimization does a similar job, but with the difference a JIT would be more flexible in different environments. In PGO you run your binary prior to releasing it. After you released it, it would use no environment/input feedbacks collected at runtime. So if the input pattern is changed, it is probe to performance penalty. But JIT works well even in that conditions. However I think it is controversial wether the JIT compiling performance benefit outweights its own overhead. Edit: Grammar

    Read the article

  • What does a JIT compiler do?

    - by mehmet6parmak
    Hi all, I was just watching the google IO videos and they talked about the JIT compiler they included in the android and showed a demo about performance improvements thanks to JIT compiler. I wondered what does exactly a JIT compiler do and wanted to hear from different people. So, What is the duty of a JIT compiler? Thanks all

    Read the article

  • Google I/O 2010 - A JIT Compiler for Android's Dalvik VM

    Google I/O 2010 - A JIT Compiler for Android's Dalvik VM Google I/O 2010 - A JIT Compiler for Android's Dalvik VM Android 301 Ben Cheng, Bill Buzbee In this session we will outline the design of a JIT Compiler suitable for embedded Android devices. Topics will include an architectural overview, the rationale for design decisions and the special support for JIT verification, testing and tuning. For all I/O 2010 sessions, please go to code.google.com From: GoogleDevelopers Views: 3 0 ratings Time: 01:00:14 More in Science & Technology

    Read the article

  • Building v8 without JIT

    - by rames
    Hello, I would like to run some tests on v8 with and without JIT to compare performances. I know JIT will improve my average speed performance, but it would be nice for me to have some actual more detailed tests results as I want to work with mobile platforms. I haven't found how to enable or disable JIT like it exists on Squirrelfish (cf. ENABLE_JIT in JavaScriptCore/wtf/Platform.h). Does somebody knows how to do that with v8? Thanks. Alexandre

    Read the article

  • How a JIT compiler helps performance of applications?

    - by igorgue
    I just read that Android has a 450% performance improvement because it added a JIT compiler, I know what JIT is, but I don't really understand why is it faster than normal compiled code? or what's the difference with the older approach from the Android platform (the Java like run compiled bytecode). Thanks!

    Read the article

  • What's a good starting point to learn about JIT compilers?

    - by davidk01
    I've spent the past few months learning about stack based virtual machines, parsers, compilers, and some elementary things about hardware architecture. I've also written a few parsers and compilers for C like languages to understand the generic parser/compiler pipeline. Now I'd like to take my understanding further by learning about optimizing compilers and JIT compilers but I'm having a hard time finding material at the right level. I don't yet understand enough to dive into a code base like PyPy or LuaJIT but I also know more than what most introductory compiler books have to offer. So what are some good books for an intermediate beginner like to me to look into?

    Read the article

  • JIT: How to specify source/sink for arcs?

    - by Rosarch
    I'm using JIT to render graphs. I'm using the RGraph feature. This JSON defines a graph: var json = [ { 'id': '1', 'name': 'CS 2110', 'adjacencies': ['0', '2'] }, { 'id': '1.5', 'name': 'INFO 2300', 'adjacencies': ['1'] }, { 'id': '0', 'name': 'CS 1110', 'adjacencies': ['1'] }, { 'id': '2', 'name': 'INFO 3300', 'adjacencies': ['1'] }, ] If I want a directed graph, how can I specify which nodes are sources and which are sinks?

    Read the article

  • Do JVMs on Desktops Use JIT Compilation?

    - by destructo_gold
    I always come across articles which claim that Java is interpreted. I know that Oracle's HotSpot JRE provides just-in-time compilation, however is this the case for a majority of desktop users? For example, if I download Java via: http://www.java.com/en/download, will this include a JIT Compiler?

    Read the article

  • [ebp + 6] instead of +8 in a JIT compiler

    - by David Titarenco
    I'm implementing a simplistic JIT compiler in a VM I'm writing for fun (mostly to learn more about language design) and I'm getting some weird behavior, maybe someone can tell me why. First I define a JIT "prototype" both for C and C++: #ifdef __cplusplus typedef void* (*_JIT_METHOD) (...); #else typedef (*_JIT_METHOD) (); #endif I have a compile() function that will compile stuff into ASM and stick it somewhere in memory: void* compile (void* something) { // grab some memory unsigned char* buffer = (unsigned char*) malloc (1024); // xor eax, eax // inc eax // inc eax // inc eax // ret -> eax should be 3 /* WORKS! buffer[0] = 0x67; buffer[1] = 0x31; buffer[2] = 0xC0; buffer[3] = 0x67; buffer[4] = 0x40; buffer[5] = 0x67; buffer[6] = 0x40; buffer[7] = 0x67; buffer[8] = 0x40; buffer[9] = 0xC3; */ // xor eax, eax // mov eax, 9 // ret 4 -> eax should be 9 /* WORKS! buffer[0] = 0x67; buffer[1] = 0x31; buffer[2] = 0xC0; buffer[3] = 0x67; buffer[4] = 0xB8; buffer[5] = 0x09; buffer[6] = 0x00; buffer[7] = 0x00; buffer[8] = 0x00; buffer[9] = 0xC3; */ // push ebp // mov ebp, esp // mov eax, [ebp + 6] ; wtf? shouldn't this be [ebp + 8]!? // mov esp, ebp // pop ebp // ret -> eax should be the first value sent to the function /* WORKS! */ buffer[0] = 0x66; buffer[1] = 0x55; buffer[2] = 0x66; buffer[3] = 0x89; buffer[4] = 0xE5; buffer[5] = 0x66; buffer[6] = 0x66; buffer[7] = 0x8B; buffer[8] = 0x45; buffer[9] = 0x06; buffer[10] = 0x66; buffer[11] = 0x89; buffer[12] = 0xEC; buffer[13] = 0x66; buffer[14] = 0x5D; buffer[15] = 0xC3; // mov eax, 5 // add eax, ecx // ret -> eax should be 50 /* WORKS! buffer[0] = 0x67; buffer[1] = 0xB8; buffer[2] = 0x05; buffer[3] = 0x00; buffer[4] = 0x00; buffer[5] = 0x00; buffer[6] = 0x66; buffer[7] = 0x01; buffer[8] = 0xC8; buffer[9] = 0xC3; */ return buffer; } And finally I have the main chunk of the program: void main (int argc, char **args) { DWORD oldProtect = (DWORD) NULL; int i = 667, j = 1, k = 5, l = 0; // generate some arbitrary function _JIT_METHOD someFunc = (_JIT_METHOD) compile(NULL); // windows only #if defined _WIN64 || defined _WIN32 // set memory permissions and flush CPU code cache VirtualProtect(someFunc,1024,PAGE_EXECUTE_READWRITE, &oldProtect); FlushInstructionCache(GetCurrentProcess(), someFunc, 1024); #endif // this asm just for some debugging/testing purposes __asm mov ecx, i // run compiled function (from wherever *someFunc is pointing to) l = (int)someFunc(i, k); // did it work? printf("result: %d", l); free (someFunc); _getch(); } As you can see, the compile() function has a couple of tests I ran to make sure I get expected results, and pretty much everything works but I have a question... On most tutorials or documentation resources, to get the first value of a function passed (in the case of ints) you do [ebp+8], the second [ebp+12] and so forth. For some reason, I have to do [ebp+6] then [ebp+10] and so forth. Could anyone tell me why?

    Read the article

  • Poor LLVM JIT performance

    - by Paul J. Lucas
    I have a legacy C++ application that constructs a tree of C++ objects. I want to use LLVM to call class constructors to create said tree. The generated LLVM code is fairly straight-forward and looks repeated sequences of: ; ... %11 = getelementptr [11 x i8*]* %Value_array1, i64 0, i64 1 %12 = call i8* @T_string_M_new_A_2Pv(i8* %heap, i8* getelementptr inbounds ([10 x i8]* @0, i64 0, i64 0)) %13 = call i8* @T_QueryLoc_M_new_A_2Pv4i(i8* %heap, i8* %12, i32 1, i32 1, i32 4, i32 5) %14 = call i8* @T_GlobalEnvironment_M_getItemFactory_A_Pv(i8* %heap) %15 = call i8* @T_xs_integer_M_new_A_Pvl(i8* %heap, i64 2) %16 = call i8* @T_ItemFactory_M_createInteger_A_3Pv(i8* %heap, i8* %14, i8* %15) %17 = call i8* @T_SingletonIterator_M_new_A_4Pv(i8* %heap, i8* %2, i8* %13, i8* %16) store i8* %17, i8** %11, align 8 ; ... Where each T_ function is a C "thunk" that calls some C++ constructor, e.g.: void* T_string_M_new_A_2Pv( void *v_value ) { string *const value = static_cast<string*>( v_value ); return new string( value ); } The thunks are necessary, of course, because LLVM knows nothing about C++. The T_ functions are added to the ExecutionEngine in use via ExecutionEngine::addGlobalMapping(). When this code is JIT'd, the performance of the JIT'ing itself is very poor. I've generated a call-graph using kcachegrind. I don't understand all the numbers (and this PDF seems not to include commas where it should), but if you look at the left fork, the bottom two ovals, Schedule... is called 16K times and setHeightToAtLeas... is called 37K times. On the right fork, RAGreed... is called 35K times. Those are far too many calls to anything for what's mostly a simple sequence of call LLVM instructions. Something seems horribly wrong. Any ideas on how to improve the performance of the JIT'ing?

    Read the article

  • .NET assembly cache / ngen / jit image warm-up and cool-down behavior

    - by Mike Jiang
    Hi, I have an Input Method (IME) program built with C#.NET 2.0 DLL through C++/CLI. Since an IME is always attaching to another application, the C#.NET DLL seems not able to avoid image address rebasing. Although I have applied ngen to create a native image of that C#.NET 2.0 DLL and installed it into Global Assembly Cache, it didn't improved much, approximately 12 sec. down to 9 sec. on a slow PIII level PC. Therefore I uses a small application, which loads all the components referenced by the C#.NET DLL at the boot up time, to "warm up" the native image of that DLL. It works fine to speed up the loading time to 0.5 sec. However, it only worked for a while. About 30 min. later, it seems to "cool down" again. Is there any way to control the behavior of GAC or native image to be always "hot"? Is this exactly a image address rebasing problem? Thank you for your precious time. Sincerely, Mike

    Read the article

  • JIT-ing on FPGAs ?

    - by anon
    Many VMS, JVM/LLVM/... have JITs -- as the code is being interpreted, x86 instructions are created on the fly and executed. If there something similar to this for FPGAS? Is there someway where as an FPGA is running, I reconfigure it? [If so, please provide project / paper links. If not, what is the technology bottleneck that prevents this from happening?] Thanks!

    Read the article

  • What's the relationship between meta-circular interpreters, virtual machines and increased performance?

    - by Gomi
    I've read about meta-circular interpreters on the web (including SICP) and I've looked into the code of some implementations (such as PyPy and Narcissus). I've read quite a bit about two languages which made great use of metacircular evaluation, Lisp and Smalltalk. As far as I understood Lisp was the first self-hosting compiler and Smalltalk had the first "true" JIT implementation. One thing I've not fully understood is how can those interpreters/compilers achieve so good performance or, in other words, why is PyPy faster than CPython? Is it because of reflection? And also, my Smalltalk research led me to believe that there's a relationship between JIT, virtual machines and reflection. Virtual Machines such as the JVM and CLR allow a great deal of type introspection and I believe they make great use it in Just-in-Time (and AOT, I suppose?) compilation. But as far as I know, Virtual Machines are kind of like CPUs, in that they have a basic instruction set. Are Virtual Machines efficient because they include type and reference information, which would allow language-agnostic reflection? I ask this because many both interpreted and compiled languages are now using bytecode as a target (LLVM, Parrot, YARV, CPython) and traditional VMs like JVM and CLR have gained incredible boosts in performance. I've been told that it's about JIT, but as far as I know JIT is nothing new since Smalltalk and Sun's own Self have been doing it before Java. I don't remember VMs performing particularly well in the past, there weren't many non-academic ones outside of JVM and .NET and their performance was definitely not as good as it is now (I wish I could source this claim but I speak from personal experience). Then all of a sudden, in the late 2000s something changed and a lot of VMs started to pop up even for established languages, and with very good performance. Was something discovered about the JIT implementation that allowed pretty much every modern VM to skyrocket in performance? A paper or a book maybe?

    Read the article

  • Theory: Can JIT Compiler be used to parse the whole program first, then execute later?

    - by unknownthreat
    Normally, JIT Compiler works by reads the byte code, translate it into machine code, and execute it. This is what I understand, but in theory, is it possible to make the JIT Compiler parses the whole program first, then execute the program later as machine code? I do not know how JIT Compiler works technically and exactly, so I don't know any feasibility in this case. But theoretically, is it possible? Or am I doing it wrong?

    Read the article

  • Does the Python 3 interpreter have a JIT feature?

    - by guz
    I found that when I ask something more to Python, python doesn't use my machine resource at 100% and it's not really fast, it's fast if compared to many other interpreted languages, but when compared to compiled languages i think that the difference is really remarkable. It's possible to speedup things with a JIT compiler in Python 3 ? Usually a JIT compiler is the only thing that can improve performances in interpreted languages, so i'm referring to this one, if other solutions are available i would love to accept new answers.

    Read the article

  • How "duplicated" Java code is optimized by the JVM JIT compiler?

    - by Renan Vinícius Mozone
    I'm in charge of maintaining a JSP based application, running on IBM WebSphere 6.1 (IBM J9 JVM). All JSP pages have a static include reference and in this include file there is some static Java methods declared. They are included in all JSP pages to offer an "easy access" to those utility static methods. I know that this is a very bad way to work, and I'm working to change this. But, just for curiosity, and to support my effort in changing this, I'm wondering how these "duplicated" static methods are optimized by the JVM JIT compiler. They are optimized separately even having the exact same signature? Does the JVM JIT compiler "sees" that these methods are all identical an provides an "unified" JIT'ed code?

    Read the article

  • Is there any .Net JIT Support from chip vendors?

    - by NoMoreZealots
    I know that ARM actually has some support for Java and SUN obviously, but I haven't really references seen any chip vendor supporting a .Net JIT compiler. I know IBM and Intel both support C compilers, as well as TI and many of the embedded chip vendors. When you think of it, all a JIT compiler is, is the last stages of compilation and optimization which you would think would be a good match for a chip vendor's expertize. Perhaps a standardized Plug In compilation engine for the VM would make sense. Microsoft is targeting .Net to embedded Windows platforms as well, so they are fair game. Pete

    Read the article

  • when is java faster than c++ (or when is JIT faster then precompiled)?

    - by kostja
    I have heard that under certain circumstances, Java programs or rather parts of java programs are able to be executed faster than the "same" code in C++ (or other precompiled code) due to JIT optimizations. This is due to the compiler being able to determine the scope of some variables, avoid some conditionals and pull similar tricks at runtime. Could you give an (or better - some) example, where this applies? And maybe outline the exact conditions under which the compiler is able to optimize the bytecode beyond what is possible with precompiled code? NOTE : This question is not about comparing Java to C++. Its about the possibilities of JIT compiling. Please no flaming. I am also not aware of any duplicates. Please point them out if you are.

    Read the article

  • What can cause my code to run slower when the server JIT is activated?

    - by durandai
    I am doing some optimizations on an MPEG decoder. To ensure my optimizations aren't breaking anything I have a test suite that benchmarks the entire codebase (both optimized and original) as well as verifying that they both produce identical results (basically just feeding a couple of different streams through the decoder and crc32 the outputs). When using the "-server" option with the Sun 1.6.0_18, the test suite runs about 12% slower on the optimized version after warmup (in comparison to the default "-client" setting), while the original codebase gains a good boost running about twice as fast as in client mode. While at first this seemed to be simply a warmup issue to me, I added a loop to repeat the entire test suite multiple times. Then execution times become constant for each pass starting at the 3rd iteration of the test, still the optimized version stays 12% slower than in the client mode. I am also pretty sure its not a garbage collection issue, since the code involves absolutely no object allocations after startup. The code consists mainly of some bit manipulation operations (stream decoding) and lots of basic floating math (generating PCM audio). The only JDK classes involved are ByteArrayInputStream (feeds the stream to the test and excluding disk IO from the tests) and CRC32 (to verify the result). I also observed the same behaviour with Sun JDK 1.7.0_b98 (only that ist 15% instead of 12% there). Oh, and the tests were all done on the same machine (single core) with no other applications running (WinXP). While there is some inevitable variation on the measured execution times (using System.nanoTime btw), the variation between different test runs with the same settings never exceeded 2%, usually less than 1% (after warmup), so I conclude the effect is real and not purely induced by the measuring mechanism/machine. Are there any known coding patterns that perform worse on the server JIT? Failing that, what options are available to "peek" under the hood and observe what the JIT is doing there?

    Read the article

  • Why after each restart, my local .NET sites take time to load for the first time?

    - by Saeed Neamati
    I'm developing sites based on .NET platform. I usually deploy these sites on my local IIS, so that I can test them and see their functionality before going live. However, each time I restart windows, it seems that sites take a long time to run for the first time. I know about JIT and I'm also aware of this question, but it doesn't answer my question. Does JIT happens every time you restart windows? Is it related to creation of w3wp.exe process? Why sites are so slow for the first request after each restart?

    Read the article

  • Is LuaJIT really faster than every other JIT-ed dynamic languages?

    - by Gabriel Cuvillier
    According to the computer language benchmark game, the LuaJIT implementation seems to beat every other JIT-ed dynamic language (V8, Tracemonkey, PLT Scheme, Erlang HIPE) by an order of magnitude. I know that these benchmarks are not representative (as they say: "Which programming language implementations have the fastest benchmark programs?"), but this is still really impressive. In practice, is it really the case? Someone have tested that Lua implementation?

    Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  | Next Page >