|
lycium
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: December 01, 2015, 09:52:38 PM » |
|
Yes! unfortunatly there are not a lot of lightweight fast JIT libraries out there.
From what I've seen of this Pascal JIT library used in next MB3D that Andreas showed, it's extremely weak at optimising, besides being commercial closed source (!!). No idea why anyone would choose this over the legendary LuaJIT, for example. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
quaz0r
Fractal Molossus
Posts: 652
|
|
« Reply #16 on: December 01, 2015, 09:59:57 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
knighty
Fractal Iambus
Posts: 819
|
|
« Reply #17 on: December 01, 2015, 10:18:29 PM » |
|
Luajit is a tracing JIT. AFAIU, one can't call luajit functions directly as one can do in c or pascal. Yes, it is more than excellent. A talented (and excperienced) programmer could extract the part that do actual compilation (SSA, optimizations, register allocation, code generation...) and add support for calling conventions. That would be the PERFECT solution. Writing a simple language adapted for fractal formulas would then be a piece of cake... sort of...
Anyone?
Dreaming about an "unified" language and a common library for fractal formulas that could be used not only by MB3D but also Mandelbulber, Chaotica, apophysis...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
lycium
|
|
« Reply #18 on: December 01, 2015, 10:23:19 PM » |
|
Glare Technologies (company making Chaotica and Indigo Renderer, i.e. me and 2 other dudes) plans to opensource our language, Winter, at some point. You can for example look at the code for the Chaotica 2 transform library here (not final, but it will be opensourced): https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3038174/standard_transforms.xmlThis compiles to code that beats C/C++ in performance, and is *proven* to be safe before compilation. It's possible because it's quite a restricted (pure functional) language, yet it has a lot of power - the whole of Indigo 4 and Chaotica 2 rendering engine are written in it. It's (unfortunately?) not the case that assembly language beats high level languages, mainly because of the complexity of modern processors, and the ability of optimising compilers to just throw combinatorial optimisation at the the problem. You really have to be best-in-the-world at low level optimisation to beat a modern compiler, and even then your chances are not good; plus, that's just no way to live/program  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
knighty
Fractal Iambus
Posts: 819
|
|
« Reply #19 on: December 01, 2015, 10:41:36 PM » |
|
That's what I was dreaming about! I hope it doesn't use LLVM as a back end. It's (unfortunately?) not the case that assembly language beats high level languages, mainly because of the complexity of modern processors, and the ability of optimising compilers to just throw combinatorial optimisation at the the problem. You really have to be best-in-the-world at low level optimisation to beat a modern compiler, and even then your chances are not good; plus, that's just no way to live/program (...) This compiles to code that beats C/C++ in performance, and is *proven* to be safe before compilation. It's possible because it's quite a restricted (pure functional) language, yet it has a lot of power - the whole of Indigo 4 and Chaotica 2 rendering engine are written in it. (...)
especially: (...) It's possible because it's quite a restricted (pure functional) language, yet it has a lot of power (...)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
lycium
|
|
« Reply #20 on: December 01, 2015, 10:44:11 PM » |
|
I hope it doesn't use LLVM as a back end.
Why not? LLVM is awesome, and exactly the tool for the job if you want fast code for your domain specific language. Winter does use LLVM for codegen. BTW, you can find some more info on my boss' blog if you're curious: http://www.forwardscattering.org/ |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
knighty
Fractal Iambus
Posts: 819
|
|
« Reply #21 on: December 01, 2015, 11:06:19 PM » |
|
Last time I took a look at LLVM. Its JIT wasn't working on windows. Thank you for the link. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
lycium
|
|
« Reply #22 on: December 01, 2015, 11:09:23 PM » |
|
Yeah that used to be the case a number of years ago (~2012) for Win64 only, Win32 worked fine. But since then they have fixed it and it's 102% awesome, no other way to even begin approaching modern compiler performance without it. If you'd like to use Winter we should talk |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
thargor6
Fractal Molossus
Posts: 789
|
|
« Reply #23 on: December 01, 2015, 11:44:21 PM » |
|
No idea why anyone would choose this over the legendary LuaJIT, for example.
Simple answer: appropriateness. It works, is stable and does not need much time to integrate it. On the other side, MB3D is technically based on a dead plattform. A large invest into some fancy compiler-solution (in the context of the current code-base) does not make much sense for me. No doubt, that this is on "greenfield-projects" like Chaotica 2 a different thing, but I think, this discussion does not help much. Anyone who has the time and power to help with some more fancy solution, is more than welcome. I'm open for any good ideas, and as stated before, some Lua-based alternative was already on the list. Cheers! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
lycium
|
|
« Reply #24 on: December 01, 2015, 11:51:26 PM » |
|
Simple answer: appropriateness.
A closed-source JIT for open source project? That's really the first thing that struck me as a little inappropriate. Anyone who has the time and power to help with some more fancy solution, is more than welcome. I'm open for any good ideas, and as stated before, some Lua-based alternative was already on the list.
I know it doesn't count for much, but I actually do wish I could work in opensource; I recently released my first opensource code since early LuxRender contributions (a silly small thing), and the experience was extremely positive for me with comments, suggestions and patches etc. It's almost certainly the future of programming. Maybe, hopefully, one day... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
thargor6
Fractal Molossus
Posts: 789
|
|
« Reply #25 on: December 02, 2015, 12:29:21 AM » |
|
A closed-source JIT for open source project?
This is not completely fair because the whole MB3D project is in fact bound to a commercial and expensive closed development environment. Of course, to use a commercial JIT makes this not better, but it is in my opinion appropriate as a working solution. Because I also see those problems, the integration of the Pax-Compiler is built in a way that it can be simply turned off by setting a compiler-directive (and pluggin in other stuff). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
lycium
|
|
« Reply #26 on: December 02, 2015, 12:45:02 AM » |
|
Ah, yeah I see your point. Is there no chance to perhaps switch to the Lazarus IDE with Free Pascal Compiler? They recently had a major update: http://www.lazarus-ide.org/From the feature list I see they support external C code and auto-conversion of .h headers, so maybe LuaJIT can also be integrated without too much pain? (I know it's a little late to make these suggestions/comments...) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
thargor6
Fractal Molossus
Posts: 789
|
|
« Reply #27 on: December 02, 2015, 01:15:45 AM » |
|
Is there no chance to perhaps switch to the Lazarus IDE with Free Pascal Compiler?
Good point, I check the Lazarus project on a regular basis, because I work on other legacy projects, which are also aiming to get rid of the Delphi IDE. Even it is great project, I was not really "blown away" yet, because usually, it is a lot of work, until it finally really works, because the "emulated" Delphi components are not working exactly as the original ones. Additionally, in the case of MB3D, we have much integrated ASM-stuff, I doubt that all of this will translate 1:1 to FreePascal. I think, I would prefer to rewrite the application rather than converting it (but, I will not rewrite it, this goes far beyond my ressources). But, this is only a first guess, when I find the time, I will grab the newest Lazarus and try to convert some simple part to make an estimation. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
M Benesi
|
|
« Reply #28 on: August 21, 2016, 06:09:10 PM » |
|
Is there an easy way to grab the binary/hex code from JIT formulas?
Maybe an offset in M3D memspace, so we could grab it from a debugger... or a button to dump the code?
I'd like to write formulas in the JIT, and optimize them outside of the JIT.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
thargor6
Fractal Molossus
Posts: 789
|
|
« Reply #29 on: August 21, 2016, 07:14:48 PM » |
|
I think it would be easy to just dump it, but I'm not sure that the result has the quality you really want to optimize.
But, I can include such an option in the next build, and you may have a look by yourself :-)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
January 02, 2012, 04:57:34 AM
Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM