| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This makes the C++ translator more consistent with the self-hosted
translator.
We go through some contortions to continue supporting unit tests without
'Entry' labels. But we still want to throw good errors when translating
.subx files at the commandline.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
It's a little hacky in some corner cases. In particular, if debug information
isn't available the trace will contain duplicated lines. This is because
I don't want the core trace lines all my tests rely on (introduced in the
'vm' layer) to have to know about debug info (introduced in the 'labels'
and 'debug' layers).
Thanks Charles Saternos for the feedback and suggestion!
|
| |
|
|
| |
Rename '--map' to '--debug'.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
In the process I had to fix a couple more bugs in support for disp16 instructions.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
A debugging aid: 'subx --map translate' dumps a mapping from functions
to addresses to a file called "map", and 'subx --map run' loads the mapping
in "map", augmenting debug traces.
Let's see how much this helps. Debugging machine code has been pretty painful
lately.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Make segment management a little more consistent between initial segments
and add-on segments (using `mmap`).
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
It was broken since I added support for global variables, back on Sep 1.
One other subtle thing I've improved is the name `looks_like_hex_int`.
We can now distinguish in the pack-operands transform between ignoring
'foo' because it doesn't look like a number, and immediately flagging '0xfoo'
as an error because it *should* be a number.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Extract a helper from the factorial unit test: check_ints_equal.
Start of a vocabulary for unit tests.
I *could* also start thinking of supporting multi-file programs, but I'm
going to resist the temptation for now. Copy helpers as necessary, and
allow them to mutate and diverge for a while before we pummel them into
a Procrustean "standard library". Extracting a body of shared code immediately
starts to discourage innovation in the shared code.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Neither jump nor call instructions support immediates. Drop that.
The only form of absolute addressing relies on rm32.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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'm going to continue using them for now, but I'm fairly certain now
that they're just a temporary device to help rapidly-prototype ideas.
The reason: there's just too many ways to abuse low-level features, and
it ends up taking too much code to disallow things soon after you allow
them.
New plan: stop trying to write checks, just treat them as temporary
conventions for now. Goal is now to just get the core sequence of passes
nailed down. Then we'll start reimplementing them from the ground up.
First implication of this new plan: ripping out most existing checks.
I'm still going to eventually build type checks. But no degenerate
checks for code just being too low-level.
(This decision is the outcome of a few days of noodling over Forth and
https://mastodon.social/@akkartik/100549913519614800.)
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
We want to always print numbers in hex. This should make that a little
more comprehensive.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Targets you can jump to and ones you can call are conceptually disjoint
sets.
I'm highlighting these in Vim, but it's a pretty complex pattern.
Arguably errors shouldn't be highlighted. Only warnings that are easy to
be accidentally deployed.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Side effect: better error messages when the tangler does something
unexpected.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
As we climb the ladder of abstraction we'll gradually pull the ladder up
behind ourselves.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|