reusing more of LLVM

[Samuel Audet]

Sure, I will start a new thread. I figured my main concern is that 
Panama appears to be reimplementing portions of LLVM in Java as part of 
SystemABI. Why not reuse this functionality from LLVM? What are the 
issues? Why is this not documented anywhere? From discussions I see on, 
for example, http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/8189173 it sounds to me like 
OpenJDK simply does not have what it takes to deal with the LLVM 
community, but am I missing something? Are there technical limitations 
as well? Frankly though, just looking at what 
https://www.azul.com/products/zing/ has achieved, I don't see any, but 
am I mistaken?

Samuel

On 1/30/19 7:59 PM, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:
> Hi Samuel,
> the point you raise has nothing to do with the scope discussion. Please 
> kindly consider moving it to a separate thread.
> 
> Cheers
> Maurizio
> 
> On 30/01/2019 02:21, Samuel Audet wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would like to hear more about what John mentions below about being 
>> "challenging enough" and leaving work for the future. I would go one 
>> step further. The Substrate VM team already has something working as 
>> part of their C interface, and they did not need to parse anything to 
>> get it working. It does not try to do as much as Panama, but they did 
>> what is in my opinion most important: A simpler more efficient variant 
>> of JNI. If we could get this bit of Panama stabilized first, instead 
>> of trying to parse everything, that would be great I think. What do 
>> you think? Or if that is not possible, how is Panama different from 
>> Substrate VM such that the same approach would not work?
>>
>> I am starting the get the impression that Panama is basically 
>> reimplementing portions of LLVM in Java as part of SystemABI. How much 
>> effort would it take to, for example, implement the required subset of 
>> the Java ABI in LLVM? Doing it that way, we would not need to test the 
>> C/C++ ABI, at least, making it possible instead to reuse tests from 
>> the JDK itself, or am I talking nonsense here? Looks like that might 
>> be challenging as well: http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/8189173. In any 
>> case, it would be great if we could have a discussion about these 
>> things instead of having OpenJDK dictate everything!
>>
>> Samuel
>>
>> On 1/30/19 5:03 AM, John Rose wrote:
>>> Currently we are focusing on accurately extracting all possible
>>> raw APIs, and providing efficient access to them.  This is
>>> challenging enough for now.  So you won't see much help
>>> for civilizing yet.  I expect that folks will start to experiment
>>> with civilizing layers when the raw extraction mechanisms
>>> stabilize.