note
Will_the_Chill
dave_the_m & chromatic,
<br><br>
I think BrowserUK's 3-phase idea (pasted below) and Yuval's comments are both in the same vein. I think this general Perl5-to-LLVM concept is valid, and although it might very well take more than a year to fully implement, I believe we could have some kind of initial demo ready by YAPC::NA 2013 in Austin.
<br><br>
dave_the_m, discounting only the amount of work needed to fully implement Perl5-to-LLVM, would you please tell me which part of BrowserUK's 3-phase idea is not producing the "I see how that might work!" epiphany in your mind?
<br><br>
Thanks,<br>
~ Will
<br><br><br>
<i>
BrowserUK wrote:
<br><br>
<b>
1. There is the bit of perl that parses the source code and builds the AST from the Perl programs source. This would need to be left pretty much as is. The whole perl defines Perl thing. This would need to be compiled (back to) C and then linked into an executable.
<br><br>
2. Then there is the bit that converts the AST into byte code. I believe that this would need to be separated out and converted to produce IF.
<br><br>
3. Then there is the bit of perl that ordinarily runs the bytecode. Not just the runloop, but all the code the runloop dispatches to. I think that should be compiled to IF and built into an IF library (.bc) It would be "combined" with the IF from stage 2, at runtime, and given to the JIT to convert to machine code.
</b></i>
989940
990308