[Python-ideas] Bytecode JIT
steve at pearwood.info
Sun Jul 2 01:41:58 EDT 2017
On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 07:52:55PM -0300, Soni L. wrote:
> On 2017-07-01 07:34 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
> >Let's say that you have a function "def mysum (x; y): return x+y", do
> >you always want to use your new IADD instruction here? What if I call
> >mysum ("a", "b")?
> Let's say that you do. Given how short it is, it would just get inlined.
> Your call of mysum ("a", "b") would indeed not use IADD, nor would it be
> a call. It would potentially not invoke any operators, but instead get
> replaced with "ab".
What you are describing sounds more like the output of a keyhole
optimizer that folds constants, only extended to look inside functions.
I expect that it would have to be a VERY clever optimizer, since it
would have to do a complete whole-of-program static analysis to be sure
that mysum has not been replaced, shadowed or redefined by the time it
I won't say that is outright impossible, but it would be *extremely*
hard to do something like that at compile time.
> When you have a tracing JIT, you can do away with a lot of overhead. You
> can inline functions, variables, do away with typechecks, and many other
> things. This holds true even if that JIT never emits a single byte of
> machine code.
What you are describing sounds more like an "Ahead Of Time" (AOT)
compiler to me. Especially the part about doing away with typechecks. As
far as I know you can really only do away with typechecks or other
guards if you know ahead of time (at compile time) what the types of
values are, and that requires static typing.
More information about the Python-ideas