| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Considering how much trouble a merge phase would be (commit 4978), it seems
simpler to just add the extra syntax for controlling the entry point of
the generated ELF binary.
But I wouldn't have noticed this if I hadn't taken the time to write out
the commit messages of 4976 and 4978.
Even if we happened to already have linked list primitives built, this
may still be a good idea considering that I'm saving quite a lot of code
in duplicated entrypoints.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
It's always seemed ugly to explain the rules for segment names. Let's just
always require a fixed name for the code and data segments.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I stopped handling disp16 at some point, and using instructions with such
an operand messes up segment alignment when generating ELF binaries.
I don't test my ELF generation. This is a sign that maybe I should start.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Bugfix: I forgot about ELF segment offsets when implementing VMAs. Eventually
segments grew large enough that I started seeing overlaps.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Make segment management a little more consistent between initial segments
and add-on segments (using `mmap`).
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Now simulated 'Memory' isn't just a single flat array. Instead it knows
about segments and VMAs.
The code segment will always be first, and the data/heap segment will always
be second. The brk() syscall knows about the data segment.
One nice side-effect is that I no longer need to mess with Memory initialization
regardless of where I place my segments.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Attempt #3 at fixing CI.
In the process the feature gets a lot less half-baked.
Ridiculously misleading that we had `has_metadata()` was special-cased
to one specific transform. I suck.
|
| | |
|
|
|
I'd been planning to add segment address computation after all labels were
computed, including labels in the data segment (which isn't built yet).
But now I realize that won't work, because labels in the data segment will
require segment start addresses. We need to deal in absolute addresses
rather than relative offsets as with the jump instructions that use code
labels.
Layer 34 is now broken by this change in a way that isn't obvious right
now: it is oblivious to imm32 and disp32 operand tags that are now going
to be present in the programs it sees. It's a lucky accident that everything
still works, because we're only using segment names right now for the very
first (code) segment in a program.
|