Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ALLVM: Forthcoming Project to Ship All Software As LLVM IR

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #51
    Originally posted by karolherbst View Post

    It's not just about this though. Between different OS you have even different functions not compiled for each set of kernel/OS combination. Then you have macros doing different things on different architectures. Then you have different ABIs for the same kernel for different architectures and then you have different ABIs for no reason at all, because some library was compiled with different optional features. It isn't about some weirdo x86 features. You would have to add so many constraints into the development process, that it won't be fun anymore.

    Anyway, the idea might be good, but in practise it won't work. It's a nice research project totally ignoring the current development practises.



    and this is the reason it is useless. Nobody writes neutral C/C++, not alone because most target glibc, and glibc itself isn't neutral C/C++.

    So before you could even use this, glibc has to be rewritten in many places.
    Read the entire sequence of comments I wrote. Just because LLVM IR cannot solve the distribution problem for ALL architectures and ALL possible binaries is not the same thing as being useless...
    Apple has a problem they want to solve, as to improved and somewhat future-proof binary distribution, and they have something (which is probably LLVM IR-based) which solves that problem. Linaro has a similar problem for the range of expected ARM servers. Intel has a similar problem, they just seem uninterested, right now, in solving it.

    You're taking the problems of Linux/GCC variety to be universal, and that's not useful. The fact that LLVM may not solve the Linux/GCC problem doesn't mean it can't solve other people's problems...

    Comment


    • #52
      Originally posted by name99 View Post
      Read the entire sequence of comments I wrote. Just because LLVM IR cannot solve the distribution problem for ALL architectures and ALL possible binaries is not the same thing as being useless...
      It has nothing to do with the actual architecture, also, it would only work for a really small subset of stuff, where you don't need something like this anyway.

      Originally posted by name99 View Post
      Apple has a problem they want to solve, as to improved and somewhat future-proof binary distribution, and they have something (which is probably LLVM IR-based) which solves that problem.
      and this relates to this topic how? And no they haven't. They have plain x86 or arm64 binaries, no bytecode stuff.

      Originally posted by name99 View Post
      Linaro has a similar problem for the range of expected ARM servers.
      why would they care? it's arm, they need at most 2 or 3 versions. To cover only this is very short sighted. If you want to do this right, you would compile bytecode binaries, which would run on every arm, x86, mips, risc-v, whatever without modifications. That's the goal, not to run the same thing on different arm architectures.

      Originally posted by name99 View Post
      Intel has a similar problem, they just seem uninterested, right now, in solving it.
      how so?


      Originally posted by name99 View Post
      You're taking the problems of Linux/GCC variety to be universal, and that's not useful. The fact that LLVM may not solve the Linux/GCC problem doesn't mean it can't solve other people's problems...
      it isn't a linux/gcc issue I am talking about, you see the same thing on every unix based system and even on windows (less these days). It's a really hard to solve problem and I don't think we will be ready for this the next 10 years. And yes, this is what kind of a big problem this is.

      Comment


      • #53
        Originally posted by karolherbst View Post

        It has nothing to do with the actual architecture, also, it would only work for a really small subset of stuff, where you don't need something like this anyway.



        and this relates to this topic how? And no they haven't. They have plain x86 or arm64 binaries, no bytecode stuff.



        why would they care? it's arm, they need at most 2 or 3 versions. To cover only this is very short sighted. If you want to do this right, you would compile bytecode binaries, which would run on every arm, x86, mips, risc-v, whatever without modifications. That's the goal, not to run the same thing on different arm architectures.



        how so?




        it isn't a linux/gcc issue I am talking about, you see the same thing on every unix based system and even on windows (less these days). It's a really hard to solve problem and I don't think we will be ready for this the next 10 years. And yes, this is what kind of a big problem this is.
        Apple and Linaro:
        #45

        Intel is an obvious extension of the Linaro case. (More emphasis on ISA extensions, less on very different micro-archutectures.)

        Comment


        • #54
          Originally posted by name99 View Post

          Apple and Linaro:
          #45

          Intel is an obvious extension of the Linaro case. (More emphasis on ISA extensions, less on very different micro-archutectures.)
          you are guessing there. There is not a single source for this. => invalid argument

          Comment


          • #55
            Originally posted by name99 View Post

            Apple and Linaro:
            #45

            Intel is an obvious extension of the Linaro case. (More emphasis on ISA extensions, less on very different micro-archutectures.)
            and in any case, apple has the used API under full control. It would be the same as developing for java for .NET, which is by far a much easier situation.

            Comment

            Working...
            X