Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Rename protononjit.dll to clrjit_win_arm64_x64.dll #282

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 10, 2020

Conversation

kunalspathak
Copy link
Member

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
Member Author

@dotnet/jit-contrib

@kunalspathak kunalspathak changed the title Rename protononjit.dll to lrjit_win_arm64_x64.dll Rename protononjit.dll to clrjit_win_arm64_x64.dll Sep 10, 2020
@kunalspathak
Copy link
Member Author

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
Member

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
Member Author

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:master Sep 10, 2020
@AndyAyersMS
Copy link
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
Member Author

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
Member

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 free to 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