Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- Probably a stupid question, but is LLVM better at optimising its IR than C compilers are at optimising C? Asked another way, why not use C as an IR, if it's compatible with your language semantics?by mocompute
- C is a really bad IR for a lot of reasons. it has incrediby opinionated semantics (e.g. the huge amount of UB and platform specific behavior). LLVM is a lot more verbose, but allows you to actually pick the semantics you want.by adgjlsfhk1
- LLVM is essentially what you get when you say "I want to use C as an IR", and then try and do it for a bit and say "hmm, okay I'd like to put some restrictions on this IR... and maybe some customization hooks... and maybe this feature..."by eigenspace
- You almost always want your own IR that you can use for high level optimisations and then transform it into the LLVM IR.
LLVM at the IR level has no understanding of the semantics of your language and therefore can't do the kind of optimisations that will really make a big speed difference.
I ended up having two custom IR's for a very high performance compiler I maintain at work. It made a big difference.
- Very cool. My immediate thought was - could this open possibilities to compete with Rust on wasm targets? Upon reviewing it more I realized - probably not. Jank (or any other Clojure dialect) wont' really be in position to beat Rust there, and reasons are structural, not just engineering effort - we need GC and, well, that's the biggest elephant.
But to be completely honest, the question: "do you need wasm at all...?", should be always followed by "why?". For like 95% of cases, Clojurescript saves you weeks/months of work. Easier to build, easier to maintain. That's subjective, of course. Most Rustaceans don't even want to try Clojure. Most Clojurists find Rust to be needlessly complex.
by iLemming - Hoping to understand this better:
> Clojure's dynamism is granted by a great deal of both polymorphism and indirection, but this means LLVM has very few optimization opportunities when it's dealing with the LLVM IR from jank.
In my mind, what is happening here is you lower Clojure code into LLVM, with a bunch of runtime calls (e.g. your `jank::runtime::dynamic_call`) (e.g. LLVM invoking the runtime over a C ABI).
If that's true, are there any optimizations that LLVM helps out with? Perhaps like DCE? I can't tell immediately, curious about the answer
(question is obviously about the pre-IR state of things)
by mccoyb - The article talks about inlining a two-arity call to clojure.core/max to instead be an explicit call to cpp/jank.runtime.max, eliminating the unnecessary argument count matching and recursion portions of the Clojure function.
It also mentions that in Clang the runtime max function will itself be inlined, so that's something LLVM ("the LLVM project", anyway) is still doing - and beyond that, as written this IR is likely to leave behind plenty of opportunities for LLVM to do the things it's good at: DCE, load/store optimisation, constant propagation, etc. And register allocation.
The jank::runtime::max call is itself complex: it's got to type check its arguments and work out what to actually do based on the two types; if parts of these tests are done before the inlined call to max there's a fair chance that LLVM will be able to eliminate their repetition and slim it all down a long way. In the fibonnaci example the fact that a previous test will have likely identified whether the argument is an int or something else should hopefully carry over for ::lte, ::sub, and ::add and simplify those down to just the single operator call - but sadly I suspect it won't at least for the addition, because the recursive call will lose the information that the return value when called with a tagged integer is always a tagged integer.
A future optimisation might be to specialise for unboxed types: far more potential speed improvement over pointer tagging, and IMO quite amenable to analysis with the Jank IR (:metadata tag functions as specialised for <type> with the new entry point, if a function only calls specalised functions (and itself) it too can be specialised, and a heuristic to determine if specialisation gains enough to sacrifice space for it).
by codebje - This reminded me of Carp
https://carp-lang.github.io/carp-docs/LanguageGuide.html
Has anyone been playing with it on HN ?
by srean - The natural question is why doesn't Jank use MLIR?by CalChris
- I suspect the author created his own IR after being offered that suggestion earlier, he's definitely aware it exists.by erichocean
- No language using MLIR uses it directly out of the box, in that sense the right question is why did Jank not create their MLIR dialect.by pjmlp
- I spoke with a couple Clang and LLVM devs about MLIR when I was doing the original design for jank's IR. The general consensus was that MLIR added a great deal of complexity on top of designing/implementing an IR and nobody was confident it was actually worth the effort. Since I knew exactly what I wanted, I just built that.by Jeaye
- Great article, as always.
There is one thing that I think is important to bear in mind when discussing inlining, especially in the context of Clojure. This is that once a function has been inlined, you can no longer update the definition of that function in the REPL and have that update the behaviour of functions which use it, unless you recompile those as well. This is not a criticism of course, it’s just part of the natural tension between dynamism and performance.
by lemming - Is that really true? Can't you track invalidations via a dependency graph?
Right, as you said, you'd have to recompile dependents.
by mccoyb - Does that not happen automatically? I know there are contexts in which jvm will deoptimize inlining and recompile, like in response to class loading that causes a call site that was previously provably monomorphic to no longer be.by thfuran
- Hey lemming! You're right, which is why it should be used sparingly. Since clojure.core is compiled (on the JVM) with direct linking, reacting to var changes isn't an intended concern, since they're not going to work properly throughout any clojure.core code using that var. This makes it a good candidate ns for inlining things. But users shouldn't just be doing this for their normal application vars without giving it due consideration.by Jeaye
- Julia actually has some really cool machinery for handling this that I would encourage other JIT languages to copy.
Whenever you call a function, that function and any calls in that call stack occur in a 'fixed world age'. Within a given world-age, method tables and global constants are all fixed, and the langauge can be analyzed like it's statically typed (there are escape hatches like `invoke_in_world`, and `invokelatest`)
Between world-ages, things are allowed to change. When a function calls another function, we add a 'backedge' from the caller to the callee.
So if I have `f(x) = g(h(x))`, and I redefine `h`, we then say it's no longer valid, and then we look at the backedge that leads from `h` to `g` and say the old definition of `g` is also no longer valid, and then we go from `g` to `f` and also invalidate the old definition of `f`.
This means that once `f` is called in a new world age (the world-age gets incremented every time a new method is (re)defined, or if a global const is changed / defined), the compiler knows that it has to recompile `f`, `g`, and `h`. What's especially cool is that this system works regardless of inlining, and it allows us to safely do all sorts of interproceedural optimizations, but in a JIT compiled language.
by eigenspace - > we're using it to optimize jank to compete with the JVM
The JVM gets a lot of hate, but that is a very high bar. The JVM is a serious piece of kit. I hope Jank succeeds. I'd love to use it in real projects.
- Indeed. Most of the hate is due to slow start-up time, but once it gets warmed up, the modern JVM has state of the art dynamic compilation and GC. Thousands of man years have been spent getting it to that point.by drob518
- Additionally, there are many JVMs to chose from, many always make the mistake to equate JVM with OpenJDK, which is like talking about C and only considering GCC or something.
Other JVMs have plenty of goodies, some of them have AOT for about 20 years now, others real time GC, other ones JIT caches before Project Leyden was even an idea, others actual value types as experiment (ObjectLayout on Azul), pauseless GC, cloud based JIT compilers, bare metal deployments, ART also has its goodies somehow despite everything, there is a whole world that is lost when people focus too much on JVM == OpenJDK.
by pjmlp - The natural evolution of compiler toolchains that live long enough on top of LLVM, eventually every one matures into having their own IR.
Even clang is now in the process of doing the same.
> We're going to use Clojure JVM to get our baseline benchmark numbers and then we'll aim to beat those numbers with jank.
> Note that all numbers in this post are measured on my five year old x86_64 desktop with an AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X on NixOS with OpenJDK 21. When I say "JVM" in this post, I mean OpenJDK 21.
In 2026, a better baseline would be the Java 26 implementations of OpenJDK, OpenJ9, and GraalVM, with JIT cache across several execution runs.
> In the native world, we don't currently have JIT optimization. It could exist, but LLVM doesn't have any implementation for it and neither does any major C or C++ compiler
Yes they kind of have, that is partially what PGO is used for, to get the program behaviour during training runs, and feed it back into the compilation toolchain.
Also while it isn't native code per se, when targeting bytecode environments like IBM i, WebAssembly, CLR, among others, with C or C++, there is certainly the possibility of having a JIT in the picture.
> Finally, just because jank is written in C++ doesn't mean that we can escape Clojure's semantics. Clojure is dynamically typed, garbage collected, and polymorphic as all get out.
Which is why, benchmarks should also take into account compilers for Common Lisp and Scheme compilers.
Anyway, great piece of work, and it was a very interesting post to read, best wishes to the author finding some support.
by pjmlp - Isn't the main benefit of LLVM that you get tons of backends for free? What does having your own IR give you that's worth this tradeoff?by stavros