Going 64 bit

Levi Pearson levi at cold.org
Sat Jan 27 16:30:20 MST 2007


On Jan 27, 2007, at 4:05 PM, Bryan Sant wrote:
>
> ???, I would think that "high-level" languages would have a major
> advantage in these cases.  Porting your language runtime would be a
> beast, but once you've done so, all of the software written in that
> language would be usable and optimized for the target arch.  The
> people who are more likely to feel the pain are low-level language
> users.  You have to port your compiler and then you have to port a
> large portion of the software written in said language.

The EPIC architecture is a VLIW variant, where each instruction is a  
compound of several smaller instructions that get executed in  
parallel.  A standard superscalar architecture like modern x86 chips  
prefetches several instructions in advance and uses complex logic in  
the die to figure out how to run them in parallel.  VLIW, on the  
other hand, requires the compiler to perform that logic and simply  
runs the smaller instructions on their corresponding execution units  
as the compound instruction is loaded.  This leaves a bunch of  
complexity out of the CPU die, which leaves more room for extra  
execution units or other performance-boosting circuitry.

So, a bytecode-interpreting virtual machine for dynamic languages  
would be fairly easy to port, and would probably run fairly well as  
long as the compiler that built the virtual machine was smart.   The  
problem is, the key to efficient execution of dynamic languages is  
JIT compilation and optimization based on runtime profiling.   
Designing a runtime like that is difficult enough as it is; adding in  
the necessity to detect instruction-level parallelism just raises  
another barrier to an efficient runtime.

			--Levi



More information about the PLUG mailing list