Hacker News Reader

Comment by versteegen | Hacker News Reader

Actually there is some progress.

For example there is a new higher-performance GC (https://github.com/LuaJIT/LuaJIT/issues/38#issuecomment-1696...) since a year ago (in fact, at least 3 people over the years have taken a stab at writing a new GC!)

And a full port to (certain flavours of) RISC-V was finished a couple months ago and awaiting merge (https://github.com/LuaJIT/LuaJIT/pull/1267), and might be merged separately into the OpenResty fork (https://github.com/openresty/luajit2/pull/236).

View on HN

From what I understood Mike does not want to merge someone else’s implementation of a new ISA but would rather be sponsored and do it himself. Can’t be bothered to source this claim at the moment so feel free to treat it as “came to me in a dream” level authenticity until proven otherwise. Seems reasonable though, I would also be paranoid about merging a sensitive complicated JIT implementation from an unknown contributor.

I was a part of the team that contributed a few of the ports actually. For example, you can take a look at vm_mips64.dasc file header for the contributor list.

Though, it is possible that he changed his mind after having to review thousands of lines of assembly written by 25 year olds. :)

Kudos! Was it difficult to get it accepted? I've seen ports rejected.

To be honest, I forgot because it was quite some time ago. But I don't think we had any difficulties in that regard. I do remember being quite worried that it will not be good enough. In the time I started working on it, Mike sent a brutal email to a person trying to do PPC64 port (https://www.freelists.org/post/luajit/PPC64le-port-status,1).

LOL, vicious! I don’t feel sorry for them though — I learned a lot by getting a few harsh corrections when I was a young lad trying to run with bigger dogs.

He wrote something along those lines here [1], which was in reply to a completely different, prototype-quality RISC-V port attempt

> Is the sponsor prepared to sponsor the initial review and integration into the LuaJIT default code base by me?

> Is the sponsor prepared to sponsor the inevitable initial bug fixes and the extra effort for continued maintenance that a new architecture entails?

Also, I should have been clearer about the new GC I linked to: I have not seen Mike say anything about it, and I wouldn't be surprised in the least if he rejects it and (wishes to) write his own, because he's had his own plans for many years. It seems impossible to get anything past him without modification. (I think it's a pity to see someone send a PR with a highly informative commit message and he replaces the body with "Thanks to X. #987")

[1] https://github.com/LuaJIT/LuaJIT/issues/628#issuecomment-716...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com