CTFE Status

[deadalnix via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 13 December 2016 at 07:21:07 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
> Hi Guys, I just fixed the LLVM-Backend a little.
> It's about 4000 times slower to start up then the interpreter.
> And has 1000 microseconds overhead per evaluation.
>
> If you don't want to run a raytracer at compiletime I doubt 
> that the llvm backend is the right one for you.
>
> That said, it's a great fit for getting started in compiler 
> development.
> It can also be used to show potential optimization our own 
> peephole optimizer could do.
>
> The llvm backend will currently not run the whole test-suite 
> because it fails on ++ (because of a missing load-store cycle I 
> suspect)...
> The strange thing here is, that it only fails sometimes :)

Do you use MCJIT or some special sauce made with Orc ?

Anyway, yes, LLVM's JIT is heavy duty, good for long running code 
but probably not so much for CTFE which are mostly one shot.