| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Baremetal is now the default build target and therefore has its sources
at the top-level. Baremetal programs build using the phase-2 Mu toolchain
that requires a Linux kernel. This phase-2 codebase which used to be at
the top-level is now under the linux/ directory. Finally, the phase-2 toolchain,
while self-hosting, has a way to bootstrap from a C implementation, which
is now stored in linux/bootstrap. The bootstrap C implementation uses some
literate programming tools that are now in linux/bootstrap/tools.
So the whole thing has gotten inverted. Each directory should build one
artifact and include the main sources (along with standard library). Tools
used for building it are relegated to sub-directories, even though those
tools are often useful in their own right, and have had lots of interesting
programs written using them.
A couple of things have gotten dropped in this process:
- I had old ways to run on just a Linux kernel, or with a Soso kernel.
No more.
- I had some old tooling for running a single test at the cursor. I haven't
used that lately. Maybe I'll bring it back one day.
The reorg isn't done yet. Still to do:
- redo documentation everywhere. All the README files, all other markdown,
particularly vocabulary.md.
- clean up how-to-run comments at the start of programs everywhere
- rethink what to do with the html/ directory. Do we even want to keep
supporting it?
In spite of these shortcomings, all the scripts at the top-level, linux/
and linux/bootstrap are working. The names of the scripts also feel reasonable.
This is a good milestone to take stock at.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
New approach to disambiguating /disp32 arguments: based on opcodes rather
than metadata.
I interpret /disp32 as PC-relative in a short list of instructions. Otherwise
it's absolute if it gets a label.
There should be no reason to pass labels into /disp8 or /disp16.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Go back to commit 7448.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
There's an ambiguity in how x86 interprets disp32 fields:
- For jumps and calls they're displacements from the starting address of
the next instruction. So far so good.
- However, when the ModR/M requires them they can also be absolute addresses.
Ideally I'd take the presence of the ModR/M byte into account in interpreting
them.
However, it's easier to assume relative addressing only for labels in the
code segment.
This commit raises an error if we ever refer to labels in the code segment
in instructions with a ModR/M byte. (I'm assuming that no instruction with
a ModR/M byte will ever use a displacement without the ModR/M byte requiring
it.)
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
subx.md distinguishes between operands and arguments. Let's use that terminology
more consistently in the sources.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Give the bootstrap C++ program a less salient name.
|
| |
|