> By "the entire thing", do you mean an entire file, without knowing if all functions in it will be used?
Yes. Afaik full-codegen had no way to discover that.
> and the "X" is never "FullCodeGen was not a JIT". Which suggests to me that the people closest to development of these things don't think of them in the same terms as you do, which is why I'm trying to understand your terms.
If you look at the langage they used, they’d always call full-codegen a compiler or baseline compiler. Not a jit. Because there was nothing to gather time-of-use information from. And full-codegen didn’t keep parse information around which is why crankshaft had to separately re-parse everything, full-codegen could not hand it the source or bytecode of functions to optimise.
Yes. Afaik full-codegen had no way to discover that.
> and the "X" is never "FullCodeGen was not a JIT". Which suggests to me that the people closest to development of these things don't think of them in the same terms as you do, which is why I'm trying to understand your terms.
If you look at the langage they used, they’d always call full-codegen a compiler or baseline compiler. Not a jit. Because there was nothing to gather time-of-use information from. And full-codegen didn’t keep parse information around which is why crankshaft had to separately re-parse everything, full-codegen could not hand it the source or bytecode of functions to optimise.