⇡How does it work?
Bytecode is read in and translated crudely into really terrible Lua source. Each Java method ends up as a single Lua function. Here's an example, minus the function prologue and epilogue:
::pc_0:: --[[ sp=0 line=15 --]] stack0 = local0 ::pc_1:: --[[ sp=1 line=16 --]] _, e = constant1.Methods['<init>()V'](stack0) if e then epc=3 goto exceptionhandler end ::pc_4:: --[[ sp=0 line=17 --]] stack0 = local0 ::pc_5:: --[[ sp=1 line=18 --]] stack1 = 1 ::pc_6:: --[[ sp=3 line=19 --]] if (stack0 == nil) then goto nullpointer end stack0.Fields['com_S_cowlark_S_luje_S_FieldBench_D_DoubleBenchmark_S_resultD'] = stack1 ::pc_9:: --[[ sp=0 line=20 --]] stack0 = local0 ::pc_10:: --[[ sp=1 line=21 --]] stack1 = 1 ::pc_11:: --[[ sp=3 line=22 --]] if (stack0 == nil) then goto nullpointer end stack0.Fields['com_S_cowlark_S_luje_S_FieldBench_D_DoubleBenchmark_S_countD'] = stack1 ::pc_14:: --[[ sp=0 line=23 --]] do return end
--dump option to see more.)
You can see that there's nothing clever there at all --- the whole thing took about three weeks of part-time work to write, from first checkin to first release. At execution time it relies heavily on LuaJIT managing to extract the original programmer's intent from the above code and producing optimal traces, which it does pretty well.
There are a number of optimisations intended to make life easier for the JIT; Java object instance data that's a primitive type (int, long, float, double) etc are stored in a LuaJIT FFI structure. It's a lot cheaper to access this structure than it is a Lua table field, and also gives the JIT more information about what type the data is.
Methods are compiled lazily, as they are called --- the
field on an object has a Lua metatable attached that catches uninitialised
members and attempts to load them. This minimised startup time but does mean
that there's a fair amount of JIT warmup time. Likewise, classes are loaded
⇡What's the performance like in real life?
Unknown; I haven't tried it on any real life programs yet.
It's really good on microbenchmarks, but of course they're not representative. I've tried it on one of the CLBG benchmarks but the results are so obviously wrong that I don't consider that to be representative either. If anyone can suggest any reasonable representative tests I can try, please get in touch.
⇡Can I run programs out of JAR files?
No, not yet. The class loader mechanism isn't done yet. You have to unzip them into the bin directory before luje can see the class files.
⇡Can this be used as an off-line compiler?
No, although the technology, such as it is, could be fairly easily adapted to do so. It's just easier not to.
⇡Is there a Lua native interface?
Yes, and it's really easy to use --- you can register a handler for a
native method via
It's fast and efficient. See
vm/natives.lua for examples.
⇡Does it support JNI?
Interesting question; the answer is... potentially. Using LuaJIT's FFI, it should be possible to provide a JNI interface that's binary compatible with existing JVMs. That should allow use of existing DLLs.
Unfortunately this is likely to be much less use than it sounds, because of the next question.
⇡Could this be turned into a real JVM?
Probably not. Unfortunately.
The big problem is threads. Threads are ubiquitous in the Java ecosystem, and are used everywhere. Unfortunately, Lua doesn't use them at all, and Lua VMs (including LuaJIT) are all strictly single-threaded. The Lua concurrency paradigm is to use multiple VMs, one for each thread, and then use message-passing between them.
It is possible to implement fake threads, using Lua's coroutines to provide multiple threads of execution and the cooperatively scheduling between them; but that doesn't get you concurrency. It also won't work with pthreads, which is why JNI is unlikely to be useful (see the previous question).
It might be possible to achieve some degree of compatibility by using coroutine-based fake threads on the Java side and then a big global lock to serialise accesses from JNI, but... your mileage will definitely vary.
⇡Could it be made faster?
Right now the bytecode translator is a really simple brute-force thing. It does a single pass through the bytecode, following branches to find reachable code, generating Lua source as it does so.
One thing that's probably worth doing is to add proper dataflow analysis to it. This would do a much better job of registerising the Java stack, and producing much more Lua-like code. Right now the JIT has trouble finding traceable paths through the code, because it's so weird; so the less weird the code gets, the more chance it has of doing a good job.
⇡Can I see the machine code being produced?
Yes. Edit the
luje shell script and add the
option to the invocation of luajit at the bottom of the file.