[squeak-dev] Anyone have any processors in Smalltalk or a formal
eliot.miranda at gmail.com
Fri Oct 31 15:48:41 UTC 2008
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 4:08 AM, Gwenael Casaccio <mrgwen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Why don't you use Valgrind with Callgrind or Cachegrind :
It's an idea. I guess because my need is for an efficient simulation of the
ISA, not a detailed performance analysis of the CPU, this doesn't seem
compelling. But it might be a way to optimize the JIT's code generator.
> Cachegrind is a cache profiler. It performs detailed simulation of the I1,
> D1 and L2 caches in your CPU and so can accurately pinpoint the sources of
> cache misses in your code. It identifies the number of cache misses, memory
> references and instructions executed for each line of source code, with
> per-function, per-module and whole-program summaries. It is useful with
> programs written in any language. Cachegrind runs programs about 20--100x
> slower than normal.
> Callgrind, by Josef Weidendorfer, is an extension to Cachegrind. It
> provides all the information that Cachegrind does, plus extra information
> about callgraphs. It was folded into the main Valgrind distribution in
> version 3.2.0. Available separately is an amazing visualisation tool,
> KCachegrind, which gives a much better overview of the data that Callgrind
> collects; it can also be used to visualise Cachegrind's output.
> On 10/31/08 2:36 AM, Eliot Miranda wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 6:21 PM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua at gmail.com
>> <mailto:siguctua at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 2008/10/31 Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com
>> <mailto:eliot.miranda at gmail.com>>:
>> > Hi All,
>> > I wonder if anyone has any 32-bit processor implementations,
>> either in
>> > Smalltalk or in some other, preferrably easy-to-parse, formal
>> semantics. In
>> > implementing the new JIT VM I would like to continue developing
>> in Smalltalk
>> > using VMMaker/Slang, but this implies having a processor
>> simulation in
>> > Smalltalk to produce actual machine code for. Ideally this would
>> be an x86
>> > of some description (doesn't need to be bang up to date, 386
>> would be fine).
>> > I'd also welcome an ARM.
>> > TIA
>> Hi Eliot.
>> To my knowledge, Exupery is the only project which dealing with
>> assembly code.
>> There are some mechanisms to define instructions.
>> I understand that. But I'm not too interested in code generation (I can
>> write this myself or adapt other code). What I need is a processor
>> simulation to generate code for, preferrably a clone of an x86, one that
>> executes its own instruction set. Then I can test the JIT in Smalltalk.
>> I believe Peter Deutsch write a 68000 simulator when he implemented PS,
>> the first Smalltalk-80 JIT, but I could be wrong and perhaps he only
>> implemented an assembler for the 68000.
>> Best regards,
>> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Squeak-dev