| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|
|
|
|
| |
Now to extend 'stash' for arrays, just extend array-to-text-line instead
and perform the lookup inside it.
|
|
|
|
| |
This should eradicate the issue of 2771.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I'm dropping all mention of 'recipe' terminology from the Readme. That
way I hope to avoid further bike-shedding discussions while I very
slowly decide on the right terminology with my students.
I could be smarter in my error messages and use 'recipe' when code uses
it and 'function' otherwise. But what about other words like ingredient?
It would all add complexity that I'm not yet sure is worthwhile. But I
do want separate experiences for veteran programmers reading about Mu on
github and for people learning programming using Mu.
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
All my attempts at staging this change failed with this humongous commit
that took all day and involved debugging three monstrous bugs. Two of
the bugs had to do with forgetting to check the type name in the
implementation of shape-shifting recipes. Bug #2 in particular would
cause core tests in layer 59 to fail -- only when I loaded up edit/! It
got me to just hack directly on mu.cc until I figured out the cause
(snapshot saved in mu.cc.modified). The problem turned out to be that I
accidentally saved a type ingredient in the Type table during
specialization. Now I know that that can be very bad.
I've checked the traces for any stray type numbers (rather than names).
I also found what might be a bug from last November (labeled TODO), but
we'll verify after this commit.
|
|
|
|
| |
Delete all the [] that has crept in since 2377 in November.
|
|
|
|
| |
It's only for transient debugging.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The rule is: every 'local' variable in a recipe must have a fixed size.
Arrays can only be directly used in a recipe if their type includes a
size. But we haven't been warning about this, and attempts to use array
variables could cause silent memory corruption.
(Hopefully this is the last hole in our type system.)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This is the one major refinement on the C programming model I'm planning
to introduce in mu. Instead of Rust's menagerie of pointer types and
static checking, I want to introduce just one new type, and use it to
perform ref-counting at runtime.
So far all we're doing is updating new's interface. The actual
ref-counting implementation is next.
One implication: I might sometimes need duplicate implementations for a
recipe with allocated vs vanilla addresses of the same type. So far it
seems I can get away with just always passing in allocated addresses;
the situations when you want to pass an unallocated address to a recipe
should be few and far between.
|
|
Reorganize layers in preparation for a better way to manage heap
allocations without ever risking use-after-free errors.
|