Metatheory.jl VS StaticCompiler.jl

I'd love to see something in the lines of Julia's https://juliasymbolics.github.io/Metatheory.jl/dev/

From that example you can see how this makes some rather difficult compiler questions all be subsumed in the e-graph saturation solve. That solve itself isn't easy, it's an NP-hard problem that requires good heuristics and such, and that's what Metatheory.jl, and that's what chunks of the thesis are about. But given a good enough solver, the ability to write such transformation passes becomes rather trivial and you get an optimal solution in the sense of the chosen cost function. So problems like enabling automatic FMA on specific codes is rather simple with this tool: just declare a*b + c = fma(a,b,c), the former is a cost of 2 the latter is a cost of one, and let it rip.

Well IMO it can definitely be rewritten in Julia, and to an easier degree than python since Julia allows hooking into the compiler pipeline at many areas of the stack. It's lispy an built from the ground up for codegen, with libraries like (https://github.com/JuliaSymbolics/Metatheory.jl) that provide high level pattern matching with e-graphs. The question is whether it's worth your time to learn Julia to do so.

You could also do it at the LLVM level: https://github.com/JuliaComputingOSS/llvm-cbe

For interesting takes on that, you can see https://github.com/JuliaLinearAlgebra/Octavian.jl which relies on loopvectorization.jl to do transforms on Julia AST beyond what LLVM does. Because of that, Octavian.jl beats openblas on many linalg benchmarks

Yes, julia can be called from other languages rather easily, Julia functions can be exposed and called with a C-like ABI [1], and then there's also various packages for languages like Python [2] or R [3] to call Julia code.

With PackageCompiler.jl [4] you can even make AOT compiled standalone binaries, though these are rather large. They've shrunk a fair amount in recent releases, but they're still a lot of low hanging fruit to make the compiled binaries smaller, and some manual work you can do like removing LLVM and filtering stdlibs when they're not needed.

Work is also happening on a more stable / mature system that acts like StaticCompiler.jl [5] except provided by the base language and people who are more experienced in the compiler (i.e. not a janky prototype)

[1] https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/manual/embedding/

[2] https://pypi.org/project/juliacall/

[3] https://www.rdocumentation.org/packages/JuliaCall/

[4] https://github.com/JuliaLang/PackageCompiler.jl

[5] https://github.com/tshort/StaticCompiler.jl

PackageCompiler, but it' s a fat runtime and not cross compile. A thin runtime is currently not possible without sacrifices for feature as https://github.com/tshort/StaticCompiler.jl.

https://github.com/tshort/StaticCompiler.jl/issues/59 Would working on this feasible?

I just read the project's documentation at https://github.com/tshort/StaticCompiler.jl. It does produce a "hello world" application that is only 8.4k in size 👍. I do like that it can work on Mac OS. Hopefully Windows support will come soon.

See https://github.com/tshort/StaticCompiler.jl

You're probably dancing around the edges of what [PackageCompiler.jl](https://github.com/JuliaLang/PackageCompiler.jl) is capable of targeting. There are a few new capabilities coming online, namely [separating codegen from runtime](https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/pull/41936) and [compiling small static binaries](https://github.com/tshort/StaticCompiler.jl), but you're likely to hit some snags on the bleeding edge.

using StaticCompiler # `] add https://github.com/tshort/StaticCompiler.jl` to get latest master