Yes, that would be totally fine.
Nah, it’s shown often because it makes people feel better but it usually doesn’t show anything useful. (I believe the example Jeff liked to use is a slide showing a function’s “very short” assembly code which is just a call (or maybe jmp) = = …)
No, rather, those tutorial should really remove the use of it. As long as it’s a julia intro material, the mentioning of code_native for any user that doesn’t already know assembly well is just misleading.
Again, what I’m saying is that there are two completely different use of code_native.
- If you want to understand how julia is compiled, you really shouldn’t look at it because you’ll be lost in the detail. (Or if you are an assembly expert, you can look at it but you won’t need any of the basic annotation either…)
- If you want to learn assembly, and I totally agree that the interactive nature of julia makes it a very easy tool to do that, you should be aware that this would not help with your julia problem >99% of the time and this isn’t the goal of
code_native. Also, I believe when you are going down this path, as soon as you started to actually understand the assembly code, there are so much more information/tricks/patterns that you’ll learn in the assembly code that could use annotation depending on the context. I have no doubt thatcode_native(or at least it’s interface since it’s no more than an LLVM wrapper) makes a very good starting point for a learning tool but given the complexity of assembly and the variety of things you may want to learn I think it’ll definately fit better in a package. Once you’ve got more information in and once it’s more matured, if it still looks similar tocode_native(I kind of question that a little, some info might be interactive) it’s certain possible to hook that in as an option.