From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?=) Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Lightning Bindings Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 20:02:51 +0200 Message-ID: <871vcqd41g.fsf@gnu.org> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1275415392 12890 80.91.229.12 (1 Jun 2010 18:03:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 18:03:12 +0000 (UTC) To: guile-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jun 01 20:03:11 2010 connect(): No such file or directory Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OJVny-00025F-HA for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 01 Jun 2010 20:03:10 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54973 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OJVny-0003dr-3f for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 01 Jun 2010 14:03:10 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=58844 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OJVnt-0003co-NF for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Jun 2010 14:03:06 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OJVnr-000134-Hy for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Jun 2010 14:03:04 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:57971) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OJVnr-00012u-8L for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Jun 2010 14:03:03 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OJVno-00020P-N6 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Jun 2010 20:03:00 +0200 Original-Received: from acces.bordeaux.inria.fr ([193.50.110.5]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 01 Jun 2010 20:03:00 +0200 Original-Received: from ludo by acces.bordeaux.inria.fr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 01 Jun 2010 20:03:00 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ connect(): No such file or directory Original-Lines: 48 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: acces.bordeaux.inria.fr X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 13 Prairial an 218 de la =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0xEA52ECF4 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 83C4 F8E5 10A3 3B4C 5BEA D15D 77DD 95E2 EA52 ECF4 X-OS: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:iIZ8PYpZ0blxXxIHFkEwRBffO48= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:10414 Archived-At: Hi Noah! Noah Lavine writes: > Here is my understanding of the three approaches: > > The approach in my project was to make machine code a Guile datatype, > which you could allocate with a special init function and write to > with writing functions which are just Guile versions of the Lightning > macros. It could be called as a function through the dynamic FFI. > > The approach in the other guile-lightning project is to represent the > Lightning code as a Guile list which mirrors the Lightning virtual > instruction set. When a list is completely built, it would then be > passed to a special function (written in C) to assemble it. It also > has some infrastructure for labels and a special method of calling > these functions, neither of which I understand yet. > > The approach in your plan for JIT, as I understand it, is to implement > this completely in the C layer. The machine code would be stored as > part of the representation of a procedure, and would be invisible from > the Scheme side. Yes. > The reason I did not use the approach of the other guile-lightning, to > make a list and then assemble it, was that it seemed inelegant and > possibly slow It depends on when and how the instruction stream is written. From a usability viewpoint, having a simple s-exp for asm instructions is nice (and elegant, IMO). OTOH, I find the ‘make-integer-id’ example at quite elegant too. BTW, note that end-of-buffer situations must be handled, somehow. If the whole call generation procedure is burried in a single C functions, it can hide these details to the application. Otherwise, it’d be up to the application to handle this situation, e.g., by linking two code buffers together and adding a jump instruction in the first one to the second one. Anyway, these are just random thoughts. Thanks, Ludo’.