[LLVMdev] Should LLVM JIT default to lazy or non-lazy?
rengolin at systemcall.org
Wed Oct 28 16:03:13 CDT 2009
2009/10/28 Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com>:
> I think that this is a great idea. Instead of making "lazy or not" be a
> policy maintained by the JIT, why don't we approach this as a bug in the
> current API. Perhaps we should remove getPointerToFunction() and introduce
> two new methods (one lazy and one eager)?
Didn't want to sound too radical, but that'd be my approach... ;)
Reclaim your digital rights, eliminate DRM, learn more at
More information about the LLVMdev