There are several levels that one can take compilation of Ruby code to.
Ex: yarv compiles ruby code to yarv internal byte code. But there are other levels, which we hope to exploit in order to make a faster ruby. We'll discuss some different style of compilation (JIT and otherwise).
There are a few existent libraries that do translation.
ruby2c: translates code like
def fact(n)
n*(fact(n-1))
end
fact(1000) # it needs this as a hint to know what type the fact method takes
to standard C (at least in all examples I've seen)
int fact(int n) {
return(n*fact(n-1));
}
So their ansiC aspect is the most hard-core "I don't want this to lany of this in Ruby at all after it's done."
pros: fast as can be. cons: see below.
rubyinline, interestingly, wraps something like
"int fact(int n) {
return(n*fact(n-1));
}"
with converters to call and return to and from Ruby, so you can call fact(1000) in your ruby code and it will work.
One interesting idea would be to pipe the output of ruby2c to rubyinline. Alas, ruby2c seems somewhat broken currently.
cons: you have to write in C. That is not what most of us want to ever have to do again.
I think where this perspectives fall apart is that they're not as flexible/dynamic as normal Ruby. It might have trouble with:
a = [/abc/, 'abc', 33]
b = 33
a.each{|thing| puts thing.inspect; b+= 1} # dynamic arrays probably not well handled, as well as ruby internal methods like 'inspect', blocks, etc.
or
a = [/abc/, /def/]
a.each{|reg| if "abc" =~ reg then puts 'yes'; end} # regex probably isn't supported, a lot of the rest of the stdlib
Then again, I haven't tried it since ruby2c doesn't even work for me.
pros: as fast as fast can be. also comes with a dependency walker so that it can "surmise" which classes of methods you'll be passing in, then it programs for just those.
cons: doesn't handle all ruby (AFAIK).
Maybe in its current state they're useful for doing mathematically intense operations? Dunno. Rubyinline is a little more useful, but requires writing in C.
Ruby2Cext takes a "ruby to ruby C" approach. Its original aim was to produce ruby compatible code equivalents in C.
i.e. the ruby:
def go
3
end
translates to
VALUE go_c(VALUE self) {
return INT2NUM(3); // uses all ruby types
}
void init_File {
rb_method_register(someClass, "go", go_c, 0);
}
It also translates blocks and everything to its ruby c equivalents (using ruby c syntax) . For 1.8 that was said to yield a 2X speed increase.
They also added some plugins, one gives you the ability to "freeze" certain C method calls, i.e.
if it encounters String#strip it always calls straight to the C function for String#strip [thus avoids doing a ruby method call]
ex:
def go
"".strip
end
Generates code that looks up String#strip and "saves off" the function's exact location [who would want to override String#strip, right?].
Thus the above ruby is converted roughtly to something like:
void *string_strip_function = Qundef;
VALUE go_c(VALUE self) {
VALUE str = rb_str_new("");
return strip(str);
}
VALUE strip(VALUE fromThis) {
switch(GET_TYPE(fromThis)) {
case STRING :
return *(string_strip_function)(fromThis);// this avoids rb_funcall to lookup then call strip
else:
return rb_funcall3(rb_intern("strip"), fromThis);
}
}
void init_File {
rb_method_register(someClass, "go", go_c, 0);
strip_function = lookup_internal_ruby_c_method(rbString, "strip");
}
So you can see this avoids a few rb_funcalls to built-in methods, and is still almost entirely ruby compatible. This results in "up to 5x speedup" or so it says.
drawbacks to rb2cext: 1.9 compiles ruby to bytecode--perhaps rb2xext won't have as much a gain if used with a 1.9 VM, since it already does some of this work, though profiling would help evaluate this.
All the above examples were static compilers. Run once before runtime [or at eval time].
Another class would be JIT dynamic compilers. Jruby is really the only one that has anything like that currently, and yet somehow it doesn't yet seem to be quite as fast as 1.9 without a JIT [1][4].
There exists a "demo" JIT using ruby2c, as well [2]. It optimizes a single method, but at least shows you how you could do something more dynamic.
So where can/should the future of ruby interpreters lie? There's lots of things you could try.
A few are making it tighter in C, or making it more JIT'y, or making it moree "dependency walking" so it can pre-optimize the paths that are guaranteed to only have a certain class passed in to them.
re: making it tighter in C
One drawback currently to ruby2cext is that if you define
class A
def this_method
calls_this_other_method
end
def calls_this_other_method
end
end
it will translate this (loosely) as
VALUE calls_this_other_method = rb_intern("calls_this_other_method"); // cache the symbol away
VALUE this_method_c(VALUE this) {
check_right_parameters();
return rb_funcall(calls_this_other_method);
end
VALUE calls_this_c(VALUE this) {
check_right_parameters();
return Qnil;
}
Note that it did not optimize the call between this_method and calls_this_other_method, but required ruby do rb_funcall. This is the perfectly valid ruby way--you can override calls_this_other_method later and it will work with the new method, but in most cases after a warm up phase methods aren't overridden, so the rb_funcall could be avoided by calling the method directly. So we could hard code the calls to the other known ruby (now C) methods.
If we were to assume that class method definitions were "frozen" after a specific setup phase, then a few more optimizations would be available, the above being one of them. [3]
In other words, rb2cext could become more C-y, with direct calls from method to method.
Interestingly, ruby2c also has a RubytoRubyC component (I never saw any examples of it posted, and couldn't get it to run) which might attempt something similar.
At the same time, ruby2c could become more ruby-y, i.e. integrating with the stdlib [i.e. if you know a string is being passed in, and the command is
def go a
a << '3'
end
then you could call rb_str_concat directly.
So there are two ways of action: one to make ruby to c translators more c-y, one to make them more ruby-y. Static compile time type analysis might make it so you can guarantee an object's class and optimize for it. That's an option.
Another option would be to create something more JIT'y. Profile to discover the "hot paths", then write C that optimizes for the common path (then you could make direct C calls outside your current class, too).
So what to do? Thoughts?
-=r
[1] http://blog.pluron.com/2009/05/ruby-19-performance.html
[2] http://github.com/seattlerb/zenhacks/tree/master
[3] For instance you could c-ify every ruby method in existence, with direct calls to any C methods within the same class (since we assume they all exist now). Ludicrous allows for this: http://betterlogic.com/roger/?p=1534 though I haven't experimented speed-wise.
[4] http://groups.google.com/group/ruby-benchmark-suite/browse_thread/thread/f56b4335cfd3ec57/c7babfb676d71450?lnk=gst&q=patch+gc#c7babfb676d71450 shows how 1.9 with a GC patch can be competitive to jruby.
