3 ms·

It's not widely known, and it seems to be still in the research stage. A lot of things in this area never really get out of that. It did not happen for MPX. Man

It's not widely known, and it seems to be still in the research stage. A lot of things in this area never really get out of that. It did not happen for MPX. Many distributions build binaries for SHSTK, but I doubt anyone is enabling it by default. Even Address Sanitizer still relies on wrappers on the side, does not provide ABI stability, and is generally not considered ready for production binaries. I don't think there's a mainstream distribution where linking with -fsanitizer=address automatically gives you the Address Sanitizer version of system libraries. (Wouldn't that be nice?) Getting these things to mass deployment, ticking all those little boxes, is a lot of effort. Porting a distribution to a new CPU architecture is likely easier, especially after the early stages (toolchain bringup). Apart from that, there could be technical issues with the proposed approach. Perhaps the memory overhead? Or it might turn out that the desired performance characteristics basically require a JIT that specializes code so that typed pointers can be used where the types are known to be correct.

pizlonator 2y ago
Pretty much everything you're saying is true. > It's not widely known, and it seems to be still in the research stage. Yes on both counts. > A lot of things in this area never really get out of that. I hope that doesn't happen to Fil-C, but it could! > Getting these things to mass deployment, ticking all those little boxes, is a lot of effort. 100% I think this is one area where I'm trying to make Fil-C different than what came before it. I'm trying to tick all those little boxes. It's a lot of work! > Porting a distribution to a new CPU architecture is likely easier, especially after the early stages (toolchain bringup). Not sure about this. It might be true today because Fil-C hasn't yet ticked all the boxes, but the aim is definitely to be close to the cost of porting to a new CPU. It's already like that for a lot of code. > Perhaps the memory overhead? Heh yeah. The invisicaps cost memory. And GC costs memory. > Or it might turn out that the desired performance characteristics basically require a JIT that specializes code so that typed pointers can be used where the types are known to be correct. I've thought about how a JIT might help. I don't think it would. (Most of my compiler experience is writing JITs and I wrote JavaScriptCore's JITs, so I'm biased towards seeing JIT opt opportunities - and I don't see any in Fil-C right now.)

pizlonator 2y ago

Pretty much everything you're saying is true. > It's not widely known, and it seems to be still in the research stage. Yes on both counts. > A lot of things in this area never really get out of that. I hope that doesn't happen to Fil-C, but it could! > Getting these things to mass deployment, ticking all those little boxes, is a lot of effort. 100% I think this is one area where I'm trying to make Fil-C different than what came before it. I'm trying to tick all those little boxes. It's a lot of work! > Porting a distribution to a new CPU architecture is likely easier, especially after the early stages (toolchain bringup). Not sure about this. It might be true today because Fil-C hasn't yet ticked all the boxes, but the aim is definitely to be close to the cost of porting to a new CPU. It's already like that for a lot of code. > Perhaps the memory overhead? Heh yeah. The invisicaps cost memory. And GC costs memory. > Or it might turn out that the desired performance characteristics basically require a JIT that specializes code so that typed pointers can be used where the types are known to be correct. I've thought about how a JIT might help. I don't think it would. (Most of my compiler experience is writing JITs and I wrote JavaScriptCore's JITs, so I'm biased towards seeing JIT opt opportunities - and I don't see any in Fil-C right now.)