[erlang-questions] clueless performance question
Sun Jun 15 19:35:57 CEST 2008
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008, Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
> On 11 Jun 2008, at 11:57 pm, Mike Shaver wrote:
> > It's probably[*] going to be less efficient than early binding on
> > first call, but there's no reason that it can't be equivalent to early
> > binding on every subsequent call, until a module replacement triggers
> > the flushing of a JIT cache or what have you.
> The startup costs can be high.
Yes for traditional JIT. Tracing JITs are much more lightweight.
> > Work on tracing JITs indicates that the overhead of late binding can
> > be made to disappear completely in the loops and functions that
> > comprise virtually all of a program's work
> I keep hearing this. Please provide some references.
One method at a time is quite a waste of time
More in depth:
HotpathVM: an effective JIT compiler for resource-constrained devices
Incremental dynamic code generation with trace trees
Efficient Just-In-Time Execution of Dynamically Typed Languages
Via Code Specialization Using Precise Runtime Type Inference
Someone else's short overview:
Mike Pall's notes on a trace JIT for Lua
Less polished discussion:
Andreas Gal's blog has lots of stuff about applying his work to the
http://andreasgal.com/ (look at the "recent posts" links)
f.anthony.n.finch <> http://dotat.at/
CROMARTY FORTH TYNE: NORTHWEST BACKING SOUTH 3 OR 4, OCCASIONALLY 5 LATER.
MODERATE BECOMING SLIGHT. SHOWERS. GOOD.
More information about the erlang-questions