> I still don't see the novelty.
Are you familiar of the state of the art in JIT compilers at the time PyPy's JIT was developed? It was absolutely a novel idea at the time, and was published as a novel result in a peer-reviewed paper. I'm not sure how else to convince you of that.
> However, applying an unmodified tracing JIT to a program that is itself a bytecode interpreter results in very limited or no speedup. In this paper we show how to guide tracing JIT compilers to greatly improve the speed of bytecode interpreters. One crucial point is to unroll the bytecode dispatch loop, based on two kinds of hints provided by the implementer of the bytecode interpreter.
> Applying a trace-based optimizer to an interpreter and adding hints to help the tracer produce better results has been tried before in the context of the DynamoRIO project [27], which has been a great inspiration for our work. They achieve the same unrolling of the interpreter loop so that the unrolled version corresponds to the loops in the user pro- gram. However the approach is greatly hindered by the fact that they trace on the machine code level and thus have no high-level information available about the interpreter. This makes it necessary to add quite a large number of hints, be- cause at the assembler level it is not really visible anymore that e.g., a bytecode string is immutable. Also more ad- vanced optimizations like allocation removal would not be possible with that approach.
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1565827