| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
| |
$ ./translate_subx init.linux 0*.subx && ./a.elf test
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
CI will fail from this commit onward. Currently working:
$ bootstrap translate init.linux 0[4-7]*.subx 080zero-out.subx -o a.elf && ./a.elf test
$ bootstrap run a.elf test
$ chmod +x a.elf; ./a.elf test
Plan: migrate functions that used to return handles to pass in a new arg
of type (addr handle). That's a bit of a weird type. There should be few
of these functions. (Open question: do we even want to expose this type
in the Mu language?)
Functions that just need to read from heap without modifying the handle
will receive `(addr T)` or `(handle T)` types as arguments.
As I sanitize each new file, I need to update signatures for any new functions
and add them to a list. I also need to update calls to any functions on
the list.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
So far it's unclear how to do this in a series of small commits. Still
nibbling around the edges. In this commit we standardize some terminology:
The length of an array or stream is denominated in the high-level elements.
The _size_ is denominated in bytes.
The thing we encode into the type is always the size, not the length.
There's still an open question of what to do about the Mu `length` operator.
I'd like to modify it to provide the length. Currently it provides the
size. If I can't fix that I'll rename it.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Signed and unsigned don't quite capture the essence of what the different
combinations of x86 flags are doing for SubX. The crucial distinction is
that one set of comparison operators is for integers and the second is
for addresses.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When I created it I was conflating two things:
a) needing to refer to just the start, rather than the whole, and
b) counting indirections.
Both are kinda ill-posed. Now Mu will have just `addr` and `handle` types.
Normal types will translate implicitly to `addr` types, while `handle`
will always require explicit handling.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Try to make the comments consistent with the type system we'll eventually
have.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Thanks Andrew Owen for reporting this typo.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This undoes 5672 in favor of a new plan:
Layers 000 - 099 are for running without syntax sugar. We use them for
building syntax-sugar passes.
Layers 100 and up are for running with all syntax sugar.
The layers are arranged in approximate order so more phases rely on earlier
layers than later ones.
I plan to not use intermediate syntax sugar (just sigils without calls,
or sigils and calls without braces) anywhere except in the specific passes
implementing them.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|