Skip to content

Rename protononjit.dll to clrjit_win_arm64_x64.dll - #282

Merged
kunalspathak merged 1 commit into
dotnet:masterfrom
kunalspathak:protononjit
Sep 10, 2020
Merged

Rename protononjit.dll to clrjit_win_arm64_x64.dll#282
kunalspathak merged 1 commit into
dotnet:masterfrom
kunalspathak:protononjit

Conversation

@kunalspathak

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Now that we have stopped producing protononjit.dll in dotnet/runtime#41126, replace its reference with new name e.g. clrjit_win_arm64_x64.dll

@kunalspathak

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

@dotnet/jit-contrib

@kunalspathakkunalspathak changed the title Rename protononjit.dll to lrjit_win_arm64_x64.dllRename protononjit.dll to clrjit_win_arm64_x64.dllSep 10, 2020
@kunalspathak

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Thanks @BruceForstall . Since the PR works, I will probably replace this PR with a one that has some relevant changes that we can test because if I merge this PR as is, it will kick off the CI runs in runtime repo which won't be useful at this point.

@BruceForstall

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

if I merge this PR as is, it will kick off the CI runs in runtime repo

Why is that? The runtime repo doesn't respond to changes in jitutils.

@kunalspathak

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

if I merge this PR as is, it will kick off the CI runs in runtime repo

Why is that? The runtime repo doesn't respond to changes in jitutils.

Ah, never mind. I thought this approval was for BruceForstall/runtime#1.

@kunalspathak
kunalspathak merged commit a3bac28 into dotnet:masterSep 10, 2020
@AndyAyersMS

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Just some random thoughts...

Now that the altjit naming is systematic I wonder if we should add "wildcard" support, eg run batches of diffs using all known altjit os/isa combinations or something?

Also if/when a regular jit can run as an altjit some of the file swapping done by jit-dasm-pmi can be simplified as we no longer need to replace the "real jit" -- and once we do this we can perhaps also change the concurrently model for jit-dasm-pmi to be more like the one we use for crossgen (run base and diff tasks concurrently).

@kunalspathak

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Now that the altjit naming is systematic I wonder if we should add "wildcard" support, eg run batches of diffs using all known altjit os/isa combinations or something?

Also if/when a regular jit can run as an altjit some of the file swapping done by jit-dasm-pmi can be simplified as we no longer need to replace the "real jit" -- and once we do this we can perhaps also change the concurrently model for jit-dasm-pmi to be more like the one we use for crossgen (run base and diff tasks concurrently).

I have opened #283 to track this.

@BruceForstall

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

if/when a regular jit can run as an altjit

I think we really need to remove altjit as a compile-time concept and move it to be a run-time concept. I really don't want the "cross" jits to be built and shipped as compile-time altjits for crossgen2.

I previously opened dotnet/runtime#41643 to track this.

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@kunalspathak@BruceForstall@AndyAyersMS