runtimelab VS llvm-project

There was a "green thread" experiment for dotnet a while ago, here is the conclusion: https://github.com/dotnet/runtimelab/issues/2398

Experiment result write-up: https://github.com/dotnet/runtimelab/blob/e69dda51c7d796b812...

TLDR: The green threads experiment was a failure as it found (expected and obvious) issues that the Java applications are now getting to enjoy, joining their Go colleagues, while also requiring breaking changes. It, however, gave inspiration to subsequent re-examination of current async/await implementation and whether it can be improved by moving state machine generation and execution away from IL completely to runtime. It was a massive success as evidenced by preliminary overhead estimations in the results.

Yeah, it kind of is. There are quite a few of experiments that are conducted to see if they show promise in the prototype form and then are taken further for proper integration if they do.

Unfortunately, object stack allocation was not one of them even though DOTNET_JitObjectStackAllocation configuration knob exists today, enabling it makes zero impact as it almost never kicks in. By the end of the experiment[0], it was concluded that before investing effort in this kind of feature becomes profitable given how a lot of C# code is written, there are many other lower hanging fruits.

To contrast this, in continuation to green threads experiment, a runtime handled tasks experiment[1] which moves async state machine handling from IL emitted by Roslyn to special-cased methods and then handling purely in runtime code has been a massive success and is now being worked on to be integrated in one of the future version of .NET (hopefully 10?)

[0] https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/11192

[1] https://github.com/dotnet/runtimelab/blob/feature/async2-exp...

Unlike these folks from dotnet, which tested directly on ASP for real workload

  https://github.com/dotnet/runtimelab/issues/2398?darkschemeovr=1

[1] https://github.com/dotnet/runtimelab/issues/2398

The only way to avoid it is to not build on top of Java or not adding any features on top of Java.

> To give another example with C#, there has been a lot of recent discussion about finding potential alternatives to their async-await concurrency model. They cite the level of effort it takes to maintain the async await style code and the costs that come from this.

I had a very different take-away. They did PoC with virtual threads and decided it's not worth the switch now and async-await that they have is good enough.

https://github.com/dotnet/runtimelab/issues/2398

> Some of the languages it gets compared too aren't even that old yet.

C# is old enough to drink and Scala just had its 20th birthday this week :)

It was tried and the dotnet team decided to drop it: https://github.com/dotnet/runtimelab/issues/2398

Technical details here: https://github.com/dotnet/runtimelab/blob/feature/green-thre...

Just last month .NET ended a green threading experiment, mainly because the overhead it adds to FFI was too high:

https://github.com/dotnet/runtimelab/issues/2398

Rust had green threads until late 2014, and they were removed because of their impact on performance.

Everyone has done the basic research: green threading is a convenient abstraction that comes with certain performance trade offs. It doesn't work for the kind of profile that Rust is trying to target.

See

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/88344

https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/flang-new-how-to-forc...

You can never mistake type_declaration with an identifier, otherwise the program will not work. Aside from that constraint, you are free to name them whatever you like, there is no one standard, and each parser has it own naming conventions, unless you are planning to use something like LLVM. If you are interested, you can see examples of naming in different language parsers in the AST Explorer.

> There is one way to make the LLVM JIT compiler more usable, but I fear it’s going to take years to be implemented: being able to cache and reuse compiled queries.

Actually, it's implemented in LLVM for years :) https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/a98546ebcd2a692e...

> It's true, this was a CVE in Rust and not a CVE in C++, but only because C++ doesn't regard the issue as a problem at all. The problem definitely exists in C++, but it's not acknowledged as a problem, let alone fixed.

Can you find a link that substantiates your claim? You're throwing out some heavy accusations here that don't seem to match reality at all.

Case in point, this was fixed in both major C++ libraries:

https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/ebf6175464768983a2d...

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/4f67a909902d8ab9...

So what C++ community refused to regard this as an issue and refused to fix it? Where is your supporting evidence for your claims?

For everyone else looking for the magic in this almost 7k lines monster, look at line 6610 [1].

[1] https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/8ec28af8eaff5acd0d...

Through value tracking. It's actually LLVM that does this, GCC probably does it as well, so in theory explicit bounds checks in regular C code would also be removed by the compiler.

How it works exactly I don't know, and apparently it's so complex that it requires over 9000 lines of C++ to express:

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/llvm/lib/Anal...

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/flang/docs/F2...

• Go • Rust • Lua • pure C (sans C++) • 6502 assembly • WebAssembly • compiler backends, like LLVM or Cranelift

Compilers also may even spill data to stack from memory, even when the original location is still available, as can be seen in this issue: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/53348

I vaguely remember that spilling like this could allow high-end CPUs to use something similar to register renaming, i.e. stack locations like [rsp + 96] could be stay in a physical registers during function execution (high-end CPUs often have more physical registers, than logical ones), but could find good references whether such optimization exists in practice or not.

Unfortunately, I think more often than note it causes performance regressions and in some cases it may even cause unnecessary stack spilling of sensitive data: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/88930#issuecomment-...