rapidlua

7 ms·

31.
by rapidlua 6y ago
With random keys updates are going to touch way more pages than with sequential ones. It increases IO due to more dirty buffers and journaling.
32.
by rapidlua 6y ago
True, but for a cpu bound task like this VM typically causes only a 10% slowdown. You aren’t going to see an order of magnitude faster execution on real hardware. The article makes it look like compilation is almost instantaneous. It’s not.
33.
by rapidlua 6y ago
The article doesn't mention the number/class of CPUs in the system used for the benchmark. It claims that 'Singlepass' compilation of clang.wasm took 2s and 'Cranelift' took 9s. Running the same benchmark mysel
34.
by rapidlua 6y ago
> but the bundle is enormous - over a megabyte of data If only DOT layout engine and JSON output format is enabled at compile time it is about 600KiB, or less than 200KiB Gzipped. https://github.com/rapidlua/viz.js
35.
by rapidlua 6y ago
I doubt that WASM is good as an embedded language, unless performance requirements outweigh the inconvenience. Dynamic languages are great for experimentation and exploring the system, e.g. a console in the browser is the fantastic tool an
36.
by rapidlua 6y ago
We are on the same page irt tail calls. I assume that instruction handlers (non-standard calling convention, tail-calls next handler) need to invoke helper functions quite often. These helpers adhere to standard C calling convention. VM sta
37.
by rapidlua 6y ago
> Did you check out the "GHC calling convention"? GHC allocates registers for arguments from the fixed list where most but not all registers are callee-save in other common CC-s. This is a big improvement; still there are valid
38.
by rapidlua 6y ago
I am currently exploring the similar approach. The idea is to compile to llvm IR and then augment it. There's a musttail marker in the language to enforce tail calls no matter what the optimisation level is. Passing VM state via argume