47
edits
LYH
Joined 29 April 2013
→Y: Your task
| Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
== Y: Your task == | == Y: Your task == | ||
* '''Did you select a task from our list of proposals and ideas?''' | * '''Did you select a task from our list of proposals and ideas?''' | ||
:Yes I did. | |||
:* '''If yes, what task did you choose? Please describe what part of it you especially want to focus on if you can already provide this information.''' | :* '''If yes, what task did you choose? Please describe what part of it you especially want to focus on if you can already provide this information.''' | ||
http://wiki.octave.org/Summer_of_Code_Project_Ideas#Improve_JIT_compiling | http://wiki.octave.org/Summer_of_Code_Project_Ideas#Improve_JIT_compiling | ||
::I | ::I selected “Improveing JIT compiling” project, focusing on “Enhance JITC functionality” and “Migrate from LLVM JIT to LLVM MCJIT”. Current JITC lacks some feature: Functions and exponents (e.g. 2^z) cannot compile with the JITC. I want to concentrate on expanding JITC to handle this non-trivial but fundamental case. | ||
::Second, I would begin to migrate from JIT to MCJIT. JITC use JIT now, however LLVM community has no longer maintained JIT and move to MCJIT. I think we could move to MCJIT as well (but still support JIT). This is really important if we want to get the benefit from LLVM subsequently. | ::Second, I would begin to migrate from JIT to MCJIT. JITC use JIT now, however LLVM community has no longer maintained JIT and move to MCJIT. I think we could move to MCJIT as well (but still support JIT). This is really important if we want to get the benefit from LLVM subsequently. | ||
::When all essential case is added, I would try to implement some JIT related optimization into JITC (like trace/method-based JIT). | ::When all essential case is added, I would try to implement some JIT related optimization into JITC (like trace/method-based JIT). | ||