Depending on the difficulty of implementing a JIT for MRI, it would be
interesting to see an incremental approach...first just a simple
translation of bytecoded operations to assembly, then optimizing those
operations within a given body, then exploring cross-call
optimizations like tracing or profiled inlining. No need to boil the
ocean at first if you can start to show useful performance gains from
a simple JIT.

- Charlie

On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 3:02 AM, Carter Cheng <cartercheng / gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Koichi. I may make an attempt to implement some sort of JIT for MRI-
> that being said it is hard to predict the performance prior to completing
> the code and running tests (or I am not so good an engineer that I do have a
> deep intuition of this).
>
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 12:14 AM, SASADA Koichi <ko1 / atdot.net> wrote:
>>
>> (2011/10/27 15:28), Carter Cheng wrote:
>> > Thanks Koichi. How do profiling based approaches differ from trace
>> > recording
>> > in this context?
>>
>> Trace based approach is completely difference, I think. And I don't
>> know which is suitable for Ruby.
>>
>> (I guest that on small footprint programs, trace based one is good. And
>> ruby is... But I don't have any more experience)
>>
>> --
>> // SASADA Koichi at atdot dot net
>>
>
>