JIT on Intel Macs???

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

JIT on Intel Macs???

Chris Marrin
Since I work at Apple now, this issue is near and dear to me. 

Since Macs use Intel processors now and since Mike's JIT compiler generates Intel opcodes, it seems natural to use it on Macs. It would simply need to determine if the Mac was, indeed running an Intel processor and generate code if so and skip it if not.

Has anyone else brought it up? Are there any plans for it???

--
~Chris
----------



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JIT on Intel Macs???

Mike Pall-5-2
Hi,

Chris Marrin wrote:
> Since I work at Apple now, this issue is near and dear to me.

Just curious: is Apple doing anything with Lua (yet)?

> Since Macs use Intel processors now and since Mike's JIT compiler  
> generates Intel opcodes, it seems natural to use it on Macs. It would  
> simply need to determine if the Mac was, indeed running an Intel  
> processor and generate code if so and skip it if not.
>
> Has anyone else brought it up? Are there any plans for it???

Umm, quoting the LuaJIT 1.1.0 announcement on the mailing list:

| It supports many popular x86 based operating systems: Linux, *BSD,
| Mac OS X on Intel, Solaris x86 and Windows (MSVC or MinGW).
  *****************

LuaJIT is fully API-compatible and link-compatible with Lua.
So you can just link with LuaJIT for Intel Macs and with plain
Lua for PPC Macs. Seems easy enough?

Well, just in case Apple has an interest in sponsoring a port of
LuaJIT to PPC ... I'm listening (but not holding my breath). :-)

Bye,
     Mike
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JIT on Intel Macs???

Chris Marrin

On May 30, 2006, at 9:52 AM, Mike Pall wrote:

Hi,

Chris Marrin wrote:
Since I work at Apple now, this issue is near and dear to me.

Just curious: is Apple doing anything with Lua (yet)?

Nothing official. I am just doing research...


Since Macs use Intel processors now and since Mike's JIT compiler  
generates Intel opcodes, it seems natural to use it on Macs. It would  
simply need to determine if the Mac was, indeed running an Intel  
processor and generate code if so and skip it if not.

Has anyone else brought it up? Are there any plans for it???

Umm, quoting the LuaJIT 1.1.0 announcement on the mailing list:

| It supports many popular x86 based operating systems: Linux, *BSD,
| Mac OS X on Intel, Solaris x86 and Windows (MSVC or MinGW).

What? You want me to READ? Sorry, I didn't even think to look!

  *****************

LuaJIT is fully API-compatible and link-compatible with Lua.
So you can just link with LuaJIT for Intel Macs and with plain
Lua for PPC Macs. Seems easy enough?

Well, just in case Apple has an interest in sponsoring a port of
LuaJIT to PPC ... I'm listening (but not holding my breath). :-)

I can't speak for the company, but I would think it is unlikely since we announced that we should be fully switched over to Intel by the end of the year!

--
~Chris
----------



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JIT on Intel Macs???

Mark Hamburg-4
In reply to this post by Chris Marrin
We were interested but moved it to the backburner when it became clear that
we would also need to access undocumented aspects of Cocoa¹s exception
system to use CoCo with a Cocoa-based replacement for setjmp/longjmp
exceptions. This wouldn't have been an issue and as Mike notes the stock
release of LuaJIT works if you don't want to replace Lua's exception
mechanism.

Now, since you ARE at Apple...

Mark

on 5/30/06 9:14 AM, Chris Marrin at [hidden email] wrote:

> Since I work at Apple now, this issue is near and dear to me. 
>
> Since Macs use Intel processors now and since Mike's JIT compiler generates
> Intel opcodes, it seems natural to use it on Macs. It would simply need to
> determine if the Mac was, indeed running an Intel processor and generate code
> if so and skip it if not.
>
> Has anyone else brought it up? Are there any plans for it???
>
>
> --
> ~Chris
> ----------
> [hidden email]
>
>
>
>
>