| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| * | 4496 | Kartik Agaram | 2018-08-08 | 1 | -0/+16 |
| | | |||||
| * | 4495 - nail down a few more error states | Kartik Agaram | 2018-08-08 | 2 | -9/+23 |
| | | | | | | It would be confusing to use negative numbers in raw hex. But we'll rely on programmer taste there. | ||||
| * | 4494 | Kartik Agaram | 2018-08-08 | 1 | -0/+21 |
| | | | | | | | Hacky test. I'm creating a helper to run tests just for this layer. But I won't be able to do this when I want to selectively run just transforms below some level. | ||||
| * | 4493 | Kartik Agaram | 2018-08-08 | 1 | -1/+19 |
| | | |||||
| * | 4492 | Kartik Agaram | 2018-08-05 | 1 | -0/+9 |
| | | |||||
| * | 4491 | Kartik Agaram | 2018-08-05 | 1 | -0/+11 |
| | | |||||
| * | 4490 | Kartik Agaram | 2018-08-05 | 1 | -14/+0 |
| | | |||||
| * | 4489 | Kartik Agaram | 2018-08-05 | 2 | -1/+3 |
| | | | | | | | The current approach to warnings is workable. We'll just never print warnings to the screen in tests. In tests you can do whatever you want. This is simpler than messing with levels of warnings. | ||||
| * | 4488 | Kartik Agaram | 2018-08-05 | 1 | -2/+1 |
| | | |||||
| * | 4487 | Kartik Agaram | 2018-08-05 | 2 | -1/+6 |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Draft attempt at cleaning up warnings, but this isn't quite right. We still emit warnings for every level-1 scenario, and hiding for each of them seems painful. Even if we do that, level-2 scenarios would want to hide level-3 and over warnings, but *not* level-1 warnings. So we need a cardinal number rather than booleans. | ||||
| * | 4486 | Kartik Agaram | 2018-08-05 | 1 | -9/+9 |
| | | |||||
| * | 4485 | Kartik Agaram | 2018-08-05 | 1 | -1/+7 |
| | | |||||
| * | 4484 - warn when programming in raw hex | Kartik Agaram | 2018-08-04 | 2 | -1/+22 |
| | | |||||
| * | 4483 | Kartik Agaram | 2018-08-04 | 5 | -463/+445 |
| | | | | | Reorganize layers in accordance with the plan in layer 29. | ||||
| * | 4482 | Kartik Agaram | 2018-08-04 | 3 | -65/+65 |
| | | |||||
| * | 4481 | Kartik Agaram | 2018-08-04 | 5 | -5/+8 |
| | | |||||
| * | 4480 | Kartik Agaram | 2018-08-04 | 1 | -0/+0 |
| | | |||||
| * | 4479 | Kartik Agaram | 2018-08-04 | 1 | -0/+1 |
| | | |||||
| * | 4478 | Kartik Agaram | 2018-08-04 | 40 | -4727/+3421 |
| | | |||||
| * | 4477 | Kartik Agaram | 2018-08-04 | 1 | -1/+3 |
| | | |||||
| * | 4476 | Kartik Agaram | 2018-08-04 | 1 | -0/+2 |
| | | | | | Syntax highlighting for dot leaders. | ||||
| * | 4475 | Kartik Agaram | 2018-08-04 | 1 | -26/+0 |
| | | |||||
| * | 4474 | Kartik Agaram | 2018-08-04 | 1 | -8/+1 |
| | | |||||
| * | 4473 | Kartik Agaram | 2018-08-04 | 6 | -24/+27 |
| | | | | | Better organize registration of transforms in main(). | ||||
| * | 4472 - experiment: help read the long lines | Kartik Agaram | 2018-08-04 | 2 | -30/+30 |
| | | |||||
| * | 4471 | Kartik Agaram | 2018-08-04 | 1 | -3/+62 |
| | | |||||
| * | 4470 | Kartik Agaram | 2018-08-03 | 1 | -10/+7 |
| | | |||||
| * | 4469 | Kartik Agaram | 2018-08-03 | 10 | -3/+1 |
| | | |||||
| * | 4468 | Kartik Agaram | 2018-08-03 | 5 | -0/+0 |
| | | |||||
| * | 4467 | Kartik Agaram | 2018-08-03 | 10 | -131/+131 |
| | | |||||
| * | 4466 | Kartik Agaram | 2018-08-03 | 1 | -6/+6 |
| | | | | | Why the heck was I using ints for OPEN/CLOSED in the first place?! | ||||
| * | 4465 | Kartik Agaram | 2018-07-30 | 1 | -2/+2 |
| | | |||||
| * | 4464 | Kartik Agaram | 2018-07-30 | 1 | -1/+1 |
| | | | | | ModR/M instructions actually can't contain disp16. | ||||
| * | 4463 | Kartik Agaram | 2018-07-30 | 6 | -65/+0 |
| | | | | | | Also purge some unused helper scripts. Good ideas in theory, but no point if they didn't make it to muscle memory. | ||||
| * | 4462 | Kartik Agaram | 2018-07-30 | 25 | -257/+10 |
| | | | | | The teensy/ examples have outlived their usefulness, I think. | ||||
| * | 4461 | Kartik Agaram | 2018-07-30 | 1 | -0/+0 |
| | | |||||
| * | 4460 | Kartik Agaram | 2018-07-30 | 1 | -4/+6 |
| | | | | | Some debugging affordances. | ||||
| * | 4459 | Kartik Agaram | 2018-07-30 | 1 | -1/+1 |
| | | |||||
| * | 4458 | Kartik Agaram | 2018-07-30 | 1 | -3/+3 |
| | | | | | Fix trace for the bugfix of comment 4456. | ||||
| * | 4457 | Kartik Agaram | 2018-07-30 | 2 | -1/+15 |
| | | | | | Port recent changes to build_and_test_until to subx/ | ||||
| * | 4456 - example with function calls: factorial | Kartik Agaram | 2018-07-30 | 6 | -1/+105 |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | I found a bug with multiply in the process; another case (after the swap of call/jump opcodes in 4453) where there's no point improving testing. Unit tests can only tell us if our instructions are internally consistent. Validating against a real machine has to be manual. I'm definitely feeling the pain of debugging machine code now, that's for sure. Going over an instruction trace, comparing the state of registers line by line. | ||||
| * | 4455 - support displacement in ModR/M | Kartik Agaram | 2018-07-30 | 2 | -11/+48 |
| | | | | | Really ugly solution. | ||||
| * | 4454 | Kartik Agaram | 2018-07-30 | 1 | -2/+2 |
| | | |||||
| * | 4453 | Kartik Agaram | 2018-07-30 | 1 | -2/+2 |
| | | | | | Got a couple of instructions mixed up. | ||||
| * | 4452 | Kartik Agaram | 2018-07-30 | 1 | -2/+5 |
| | | | | | Keep a few macros more tightly scoped to just the transform they're used in. | ||||
| * | 4451 | Kartik Agaram | 2018-07-30 | 1 | -3/+2 |
| | | |||||
| * | 4450 | Kartik Agaram | 2018-07-30 | 2 | -0/+31 |
| | | |||||
| * | 4449 | Kartik Agaram | 2018-07-28 | 4 | -19/+14 |
| | | |||||
| * | 4448 | Kartik Agaram | 2018-07-27 | 1 | -4/+56 |
| | | |||||
| * | 4447 | Kartik Agaram | 2018-07-27 | 137 | -16727/+22050 |
| | | |||||