about summary refs log tree commit diff stats
path: root/subx/017jump_disp8.cc
Commit message (Collapse)AuthorAgeFilesLines
* switch to new syntax for segment headers in C++Kartik Agaram2019-05-181-14/+14
|
* start using the new carry flagKartik Agaram2019-05-131-9/+45
| | | | | Skimping on tests; the code changes seem pretty trivial. Will this fix CI?!
* 5001 - drop the :(scenario) DSLKartik Agaram2019-03-121-170/+254
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | I've been saying for a while[1][2][3] that adding extra abstractions makes things harder for newcomers, and adding new notations doubly so. And then I notice this DSL in my own backyard. Makes me feel like a hypocrite. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13565743#13570092 [2] https://lobste.rs/s/to8wpr/configuration_files_are_canary_warning [3] https://lobste.rs/s/mdmcdi/little_languages_by_jon_bentley_1986#c_3miuf2 The implementation of the DSL was also highly hacky: a) It was happening in the tangle/ tool, but was utterly unrelated to tangling layers. b) There were several persnickety constraints on the different kinds of lines and the specific order they were expected in. I kept finding bugs where the translator would silently do the wrong thing. Or the error messages sucked, and readers may be stuck looking at the generated code to figure out what happened. Fixing error messages would require a lot more code, which is one of my arguments against DSLs in the first place: they may be easy to implement, but they're hard to design to go with the grain of the underlying platform. They require lots of iteration. Is that effort worth prioritizing in this project? On the other hand, the DSL did make at least some readers' life easier, the ones who weren't immediately put off by having to learn a strange syntax. There were fewer quotes to parse, fewer backslash escapes. Anyway, since there are also people who dislike having to put up with strange syntaxes, we'll call that consideration a wash and tear this DSL out. --- This commit was sheer drudgery. Hopefully it won't need to be redone with a new DSL because I grow sick of backslashes.
* 4987 - support `browse_trace` tool in SubXKartik Agaram2019-02-251-49/+49
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | I've extracted it into a separate binary, independent of my Mu prototype. I also cleaned up my tracing layer to be a little nicer. Major improvements: - Realized that incremental tracing really ought to be the default. And to minimize printing traces to screen. - Finally figured out how to combine layers and call stack frames in a single dimension of depth. The answer: optimize for the experience of `browse_trace`. Instructions occupy a range of depths based on their call stack frame, and minor details of an instruction lie one level deeper in each case. Other than that, I spent some time adjusting levels everywhere to make `browse_trace` useful.
* 4697Kartik Agaram2018-10-141-6/+6
|
* 4695Kartik Agaram2018-10-141-14/+14
|
* 4694Kartik Agaram2018-10-131-7/+7
| | | | Check for duplicate docstrings.
* 4693Kartik Agaram2018-10-131-7/+7
| | | | | | | | Add the standard mnemonic for each opcode. We aren't ever going to have complete docs of the subset of the x86 ISA we support, so we need to help readers cross-correlate with the complete docs.
* 4688Kartik Agaram2018-10-121-6/+6
|
* 4469Kartik Agaram2018-08-031-0/+287