[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: bpf jit
Hi NetBSD devs,
> > Lack of documentation, as you already pointed out, contributes to this as
> > well. There are various other questions unanswered, e.g. would we diverge
> > SLJIT code in favour of better integration into NetBSD? Would the changes
> > be committed to upstream or we would maintain SLJIT ourselves or perhaps
> > would even take over the maintenance?
> The author of sljit is in the discussion. Perhaps he can answer these
The primary design points of sljit:
1) be lightweight - lighter than a library. In PCRE-JIT the compiler is simply
included with a #include, so it is not possible to use the JIT compiler through
PCRE, and the unnecessary functions (i.e. floating point arithmetic) are also
removed by the linker.
2) easy to learn - looks like a simplified assembler.
3) cover the general features of widely used CPUs, instead of creating another
RISC instruction translator. That is a major difference compared to other
lightweight JITs (libjit, GNU lightning).
We can add new features as long as they don't hurt other use cases, i.e. NetBSD
kernel specific defines, if they are properly guarded by ifdefs. We can also
add autotools based build system, .so versioning, etc. Just we should never
forget that all of these features are optional. Of course we need someone who
is willing to maintain these features.
Anyway, thanks to the PCRE library, sljit is now widely tested. I got feedback
from IBM AIX users on PowerPC, Longsoon based MIPS sytems, etc, and we were
able to make sljit work with a few minor changes.
Main Index |
Thread Index |