| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Snapshot of incomplete work to have the memory allocator use `mmap` rather
than `brk`. C tests pass, but the SubX layers are still broken.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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!
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Split off a couple of tests so we can name desired behaviors.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Bugfix in string escapes.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Fix CI; unfortunately it runs C++98.
|
| |
|
|
| |
handle newlines
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
|
|
Doesn't de-duplicate in the data segment, though. If you use the literal
"foo" a hundred times in your code segment you're gonna spend a hundred
times the space you need to.
We can now simplify our test harness a bit in the factorial app, but we
still have to put in commandline args to compare with manually. We only
support length-prefixed strings, not null-terminated ones.
|