forked from OSchip/llvm-project
31 lines
1.4 KiB
Plaintext
31 lines
1.4 KiB
Plaintext
|
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 12:32:22 -0500
|
||
|
|
From: Vikram Adve <vadve@cs.uiuc.edu>
|
||
|
|
To: Chris Lattner <lattner@cs.uiuc.edu>
|
||
|
|
Subject: .NET vs. our VM
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
One significant difference between .NET CLR and our VM is that the CLR
|
||
|
|
includes full information about classes and inheritance. In fact, I just
|
||
|
|
sat through the paper on adding templates to .NET CLR, and the speaker
|
||
|
|
indicated that the goal seems to be to do simple static compilation (very
|
||
|
|
little lowering or optimization). Also, the templates implementation in CLR
|
||
|
|
"relies on dynamic class loading and JIT compilation".
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
This is an important difference because I think there are some significant
|
||
|
|
advantages to have a much lower level VM layer, and do significant static
|
||
|
|
analysis and optimization.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
I also talked to the lead guy for KAI's C++ compiler (Arch Robison) and he
|
||
|
|
said that SGI and other commercial compilers have included options to export
|
||
|
|
their *IR* next to the object code (i.e., .il files) and use them for
|
||
|
|
link-time code generation. In fact, he said that the .o file was nearly
|
||
|
|
empty and was entirely generated from the .il at link-time. But he agreed
|
||
|
|
that this limited the link-time interprocedural optimization to modules
|
||
|
|
compiled by the same compiler, whereas our approach allows us to link and
|
||
|
|
optimize modules from multiple different compilers. (Also, of course, they
|
||
|
|
don't do anything for runtime optimization).
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
All issues to bring up in Related Work.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
--Vikram
|
||
|
|
|