| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|
|
|
|
| |
Let's start putting r32 first in compare instructions that need it. Ordering
there is quite subtle and of great import.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Try to make the comments consistent with the type system we'll eventually
have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Standardize conventions for labels within objects in the data segment.
We're going to use this in a new tool.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Clean up pseudocode to match planned syntax for the type- and memory-safe
level-2 Mu language.
http://akkartik.name/post/mu-2019-2 is already out of date.
|
|
|
|
| |
Replace calculations of constants with labels.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Now added to CI.
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Fix a bug in call.subx's tokenizer.
|
|
|
|
| |
Done with calls.subx's variant of next-word.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Further flesh out next-word variant for calls.subx. All the code is
sketched out, and baseline tests pass. No tests yet for new
functionality compared to sigils.subx.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Translating common bits from sigils.subx expression-aware variant of
next-word to use sigils in calls.subx.
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|