Compiling a program to bytecode instead of native code enables a certain level of portability, so long a fitting Virtual Machine exists.
But I'm kinda wondering, why delay the compilation? Why not simply compile the byte code when installing an application?
And if that is done, why not adopt it to languages that directly compile to native code? Compile them to an intermediate format, distribute a "JIT" compiler with the installer and compile it on the target machine.
The only thing I can think of is runtime optimization. That's about the only major thing that can't be done at installation time. Thoughts?
Often it is precompiled. Consider, for example, precompiling .NET code with NGEN.
One reason for not precompiling everything would be extensibility. Consider those languages which allow use of reflection to load additional code at runtime.
Some JIT Compilers (Java HotSpot, for example) use type feedback based inlining. They track which types are actually used in the program, and inline function calls based on the assumption that what they saw earlier is what they will see later. In order for this to work, they need to run the program through a number of iterations of its "hot loop" in order to know what types are used.
This optimization is totally unavailable at install time.
The bytecode has been compiled just as well as the C++ code has been compiled.
Also the JIT compiler, i.e. .NET and the Java runtimes are massive and dynamic; And you can't foresee in a program which parts the apps use so you need the entire runtime.
Also one has to realize that a language targeted to a virtual machine has very different design goals than a language targeted to bare metal.
Take C++ vs. Java.
C++ wouldn't work on a VM, In particular a lot of the C++ language design is geared towards RAII.
Java wouldn't work on bare metal for so many reasons. primitive types for one.
EDIT: As delnan points out correctly; JIT and similar technologies, though hugely benificial to bytecode performance, would likely not be available at install time. Also compiling for a VM is very different from compiling to native code.
Related
This is a subject that I am not very knowledgable about and I was hoping to get a better understanding on the topic.
I was going through articles about Apple's transition to Apple Silicon and at some point I read "Apple is going to ship Rosetta 2, an emulation layer that lets you run old apps on new Macs."
As far as I know, an application is written in a high level language (e.g. C/C++,Java etc.). Then the compiler (let's assume interpreters don't exist for a moment) reads that code and translates it to assembly code. Then the assembler will convert assembly code to machine code which is readable by the processor.
My question is, assuming the above are correct, why is Rosetta 2 required since a CPU is supposed to translate high level code into readable machine code anyway? Why would developers need to "optimise" (or care on what processor their applications are run on) their applications since they are written (mostly) in high level language (which the processor can compile) ? I don't get why would programmers care if the CPU is supposed to handle compiling and assembling.
This question is probably rather trivial but I couldn't find what I was looking for just by reading about compilers or CPU architecture.
a CPU is supposed to translate high level code into readable machine code anyway?
No, the CPU doesn't do that itself, it happens via software running on the CPU (JIT or ahead-of-time compiler).
For ahead-of-time compiler (e.g. normal C++ implementations), closed source software only ships x86 machine code, not source. So you can't just recompile it yourself. Open-source software is usually easily portable by recompiling.
Rewritten is an overstatement for most apps, most can just recompile.
But if you have custom x86-specific code, like manually vectorized SIMD loops using SSE / AVX intrinsics or hand-written asm, you'd have to port those to NEON / AArch64 SIMD.
I'm writing a virtual machine for a dynamically typed interpreted language that I'm creating, i thought of JIT and if it will be worth it to add it, the design i was having in mind is to have it embedded in the normal VM somewhere because like you know JITs aren't portable so i might not have all backends and would like to still reuse the normal VM and disable JIT with a simple #define flag, i just need a little design advices on how would this go, do i have to jit compile all instructions to machine code or what i was having in mind was something like a "partial jit" to jit compile a few performance critical instructions but then i don't know how would that work, how would it interfer with other instructions that aren't jit compiled and another question that comes up in my mind is how would i even represent types and all that on assembly level, overall I'm a total noob in jit compilers and need someone to guide to the right path, What do other VMs like JVM and LuaJIT do in this case?
In a tutorial I've encountered a new concept (for me), that I never thought is possible. Actually, I thought that compilation is an entirely pre-run-time process. This is the phrase from tutorial: "Compile time occurs before link time (when the output of one or more compiled files are joined together) and runtime (when a program is executed). In some programming languages it may be necessary for some compilation and linking to occur at runtime".
My questions are:
Is pre-run-time compilation and linking processes absolutely different from run-time compilation and linking? If yes, please explain the main differences.
How are code sections that need to be compiled(linked) during run-time marked and where is that information kept? (This may be different from language to language, if possible, please give a specific example).
Thank you very much for your time!
Runtime compilation
The best (most well known) example I'm personally aware of is the just in time compilation used by Java. As you might know Java code is being compiled into bytecode which can be interpreted by the Java Virtual Machine. It's therefore different from let's say C++ which is first fully (preprocessed) compiled (and linked) into an executable which can be ran directly by the OS without any virtual machine.
The Java bytecode is instead interpreted by the VM, which maps them to processor specific instructions. That being said the JVM does JIT, which takes that bytecode and compiles it (during runtime) into machine code. Here we arrive at your second question. Even in Java it can depend on which JVM you are using but basically there are pieces of code called hotspots, the pieces of code that are run frequently and which might be compiled so the application's performance improves. This is done during runtime because the normal compiler does not have (or well might not have) all the necessary data to make a proper judgement which pieces of code are in fact ran frequently. Therefore JIT requires some kind of runtime statistics gathering, which is done parallel to the program execution and is done by the JVM. What kind of statistics are gathered, what can be optimised (compiled in runtime) etc. depends on the implementation (you obviously cannot do everything a normal compiler would do due to memory and time constraints - guess this partly answers the first question? you don't compile everything and usually only a limited set of optimisations are supported in runtime compilation). You can try looking for such info but from my experience usually it's very badly documented and hard to find (at least when it comes to official sources, not presentations/blogs etc.)
Runtime linking
Linker is a different pair of shoes. We cannot use the Java example anymore since it doesn't really have a linker like C or C++ (instead it has a classloader which takes care of loading files and putting it all together).
Usually linking is performed by a linker after the compilation step (static linking), this has pros (no dependencies) and cons (higher memory imprint as we cannot use a shared library, when the library number changes you need to recompile your sources).
Runtime linking (dynamic/late linking) is actually performed by the OS and it's the OS linker's job to first load shared libraries and then attach them to a running process. Furthermore there are also different types of dynamic linking: explicit and implicit. This has the benefit of not having to recompile the source when the version number changes since it's dynamic and library sharing but also drawbacks, what if you have different programs that use the same library but require different versions (look for DLL hell). So yes those two concepts are also quite different.
Again how it's all done, how it's decided what and how should be linked, is OS specific, for instance Microsoft has the dynamic-link library concept.
I think I finally know what I want in a compiled programming language, a fast compiler. I get the feeling that this is a really superficial thing to care about but some time after switching from Java to Scala for a while I realized that being able to make a small change in code and immediately run the program is actually quite important to me. Besides Java and Go I don't know of any languages that really value compile speed.
Delphi/Object Pascal. Make a change, press F9 and it runs - you don't even notice the compile time. A full rebuild of a fairly substantial project that we run takes of the order of 10-20 seconds, even on a fairly wimpy machine
There's an open source variant available at www.freepascal.org. I've not messed with it but it reportedly is just as fast - it's the design of the Pascal language that allows this.
Java isn't fast for compiling. The feature you a looking for is probably a hot replacement/redeployment while coding. Eclipse recompiles just the files you changed.
You could try some interpreted languages. They usually don't require compiling at all.
I wouldn't choose a language based on compilation speed...
Java is not the fastest compiler out there.
Pascal (and its close relatives) is designed to be fast - it can be compiled in a single pass. Objective Caml is known for its compilation speed (and there is a REPL too).
On the other hand, what you really need is REPL, not a fast recompilation and re-linking of everything. So you may want to try a language which supports an incremental compilation. Clojure fits well (and it is built on top of the same JVM you're used to). Common Lisp is another option.
I'd like to add that there official compilers for languages and unofficial ones made by different people. Obviously because of this the performance changes per compiler.
If you were to talk just about the official compiler I'd say it's probably Fortran. It's very old but it's still used in most science and engineering projects because it is one of the fastest languages. C and C++ come probably tied in second because there also used in science and engineering.
Does openMP have a runtime (like .NET CLR on top of operating system) or just a compiler?
OpenMP doesn't really have, or need, anything like the .NET CLR. Compilers typically produce code which uses one or other of the approaches to threading already installed on the platform. There are also a few environment variables which OpenMP programs may want to use, but that hardly constitues a run-time system either.
I've never come across an OpenMP compiler which needed a separate installation of a run time system or anything like one.
EDIT: An OpenMP installation also needs to provide functions such as omp_get_thread_num which are usually packaged in a library of some sort.