akkartik
/
mu
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Projects Releases Wiki Activity
mu/linux/ex6.subx

36 lines
1.1 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Normal View History

4808 - clean up comments in all subx files
2018-12-01 00:45:15 +00:00
# Print out a (global variable) string to stdout.
4414 - subx: syntax checking This is a large patch, and there's a few things wrong with it: a) Helpers are incredibly messy. I want to use has_metadata in layer 24, but can't since it also does error checking. There must be a better basis set of primitives for managing metadata. b) Layer 22 introduces operands for checking, but programs with operands don't actually run until layer 24. So I can't write non-error scenarios in layer 22. That seems ugly. But if I try to introduce layer 24 first there's nothing left to check after it. I *could* play tricks with ordering layers vs transforms. Mu does that a bit, but it becomes hard to mess with, so I'm trying to avoid that. My current plan is for layers within an "abstraction level" to be run in order. Higher layers will necessarily need to come before lower ones. But hopefully this level of hierarchy will help manage the chaos. c) The check for whether an instruction is all hex bytes makes me nervous. I do want to check that an instruction that's just: cd tells the programmer that an operand is missing. The check I currently have is likely not perfectly correct. I *could* put layer 25 in its own commit. But I guess I'm not doing that now. We have a new example program: hello world!
2018-07-26 03:53:43 +00:00
#
5521
2019-08-20 06:45:04 +00:00
# To run:
.
2021-03-30 01:47:52 +00:00
# $ bootstrap/bootstrap translate ex6.subx -o ex6
7847
2021-03-04 08:24:24 +00:00
# $ bootstrap/bootstrap run ex6
4414 - subx: syntax checking This is a large patch, and there's a few things wrong with it: a) Helpers are incredibly messy. I want to use has_metadata in layer 24, but can't since it also does error checking. There must be a better basis set of primitives for managing metadata. b) Layer 22 introduces operands for checking, but programs with operands don't actually run until layer 24. So I can't write non-error scenarios in layer 22. That seems ugly. But if I try to introduce layer 24 first there's nothing left to check after it. I *could* play tricks with ordering layers vs transforms. Mu does that a bit, but it becomes hard to mess with, so I'm trying to avoid that. My current plan is for layers within an "abstraction level" to be run in order. Higher layers will necessarily need to come before lower ones. But hopefully this level of hierarchy will help manage the chaos. c) The check for whether an instruction is all hex bytes makes me nervous. I do want to check that an instruction that's just: cd tells the programmer that an operand is missing. The check I currently have is likely not perfectly correct. I *could* put layer 25 in its own commit. But I guess I'm not doing that now. We have a new example program: hello world!
2018-07-26 03:53:43 +00:00
# Hello, world!
5647 - experimental support for swapping OS
2019-09-12 02:04:49 +00:00
== code
4802 Some automated commenting cleanup. Still needs more careful manual scanning. sed -i 's/^# 1-3/# . 1-3/' *.subx */*.subx sed -i 's/^# op/# . op/' *.subx */*.subx sed -i 's/# vim/# . . vim/' *.subx */*.subx sed -i 's/^ # push args/ # . . push args/' *.subx */*.subx sed -i 's/^ # discard args/ # . . discard args/' *.subx */*.subx sed -i 's/^ # call/ # . . call/' *.subx */*.subx sed -i 's/^ # prolog/ # . prolog/' *.subx */*.subx sed -i 's/^ # epilog/ # . epilog/' *.subx */*.subx sed -i 's/^ # save registers/ # . save registers/' *.subx */*.subx sed -i 's/^ # restore registers/ # . restore registers/' *.subx */*.subx sed -i 's/ operand / register /' *.subx */*.subx
2018-11-30 19:10:44 +00:00
# . op subop mod rm32 base index scale r32
# . 1-3 bytes 3 bits 2 bits 3 bits 3 bits 3 bits 2 bits 2 bits 0/1/2/4 bytes 0/1/2/4 bytes
4414 - subx: syntax checking This is a large patch, and there's a few things wrong with it: a) Helpers are incredibly messy. I want to use has_metadata in layer 24, but can't since it also does error checking. There must be a better basis set of primitives for managing metadata. b) Layer 22 introduces operands for checking, but programs with operands don't actually run until layer 24. So I can't write non-error scenarios in layer 22. That seems ugly. But if I try to introduce layer 24 first there's nothing left to check after it. I *could* play tricks with ordering layers vs transforms. Mu does that a bit, but it becomes hard to mess with, so I'm trying to avoid that. My current plan is for layers within an "abstraction level" to be run in order. Higher layers will necessarily need to come before lower ones. But hopefully this level of hierarchy will help manage the chaos. c) The check for whether an instruction is all hex bytes makes me nervous. I do want to check that an instruction that's just: cd tells the programmer that an operand is missing. The check I currently have is likely not perfectly correct. I *could* put layer 25 in its own commit. But I guess I'm not doing that now. We have a new example program: hello world!
2018-07-26 03:53:43 +00:00
5410 - 4 examples passing Clean up other examples as well to satisfy the requirements in commit 5404.
2019-07-17 07:47:11 +00:00
Entry:
5647 - experimental support for swapping OS
2019-09-12 02:04:49 +00:00
# write(stdout, X, Size)
4808 - clean up comments in all subx files
2018-12-01 00:45:15 +00:00
# . fd = 1 (stdout)
5592 - switch register names to lowercase
2019-08-26 18:55:26 +00:00
bb/copy-to-ebx 1/imm32
4808 - clean up comments in all subx files
2018-12-01 00:45:15 +00:00
# . initialize X (location to write result to)
5592 - switch register names to lowercase
2019-08-26 18:55:26 +00:00
b9/copy-to-ecx X/imm32
4808 - clean up comments in all subx files
2018-12-01 00:45:15 +00:00
# . initialize Size
5592 - switch register names to lowercase
2019-08-26 18:55:26 +00:00
8b/copy 0/mod/indirect 5/rm32/.disp32 . . 2/r32/edx Size/disp32 . # copy *Size to edx
4808 - clean up comments in all subx files
2018-12-01 00:45:15 +00:00
# . syscall
5647 - experimental support for swapping OS
2019-09-12 02:04:49 +00:00
e8/call syscall_write/disp32
4414 - subx: syntax checking This is a large patch, and there's a few things wrong with it: a) Helpers are incredibly messy. I want to use has_metadata in layer 24, but can't since it also does error checking. There must be a better basis set of primitives for managing metadata. b) Layer 22 introduces operands for checking, but programs with operands don't actually run until layer 24. So I can't write non-error scenarios in layer 22. That seems ugly. But if I try to introduce layer 24 first there's nothing left to check after it. I *could* play tricks with ordering layers vs transforms. Mu does that a bit, but it becomes hard to mess with, so I'm trying to avoid that. My current plan is for layers within an "abstraction level" to be run in order. Higher layers will necessarily need to come before lower ones. But hopefully this level of hierarchy will help manage the chaos. c) The check for whether an instruction is all hex bytes makes me nervous. I do want to check that an instruction that's just: cd tells the programmer that an operand is missing. The check I currently have is likely not perfectly correct. I *could* put layer 25 in its own commit. But I guess I'm not doing that now. We have a new example program: hello world!
2018-07-26 03:53:43 +00:00
5647 - experimental support for swapping OS
2019-09-12 02:04:49 +00:00
# exit(ebx)
e8/call syscall_exit/disp32
4414 - subx: syntax checking This is a large patch, and there's a few things wrong with it: a) Helpers are incredibly messy. I want to use has_metadata in layer 24, but can't since it also does error checking. There must be a better basis set of primitives for managing metadata. b) Layer 22 introduces operands for checking, but programs with operands don't actually run until layer 24. So I can't write non-error scenarios in layer 22. That seems ugly. But if I try to introduce layer 24 first there's nothing left to check after it. I *could* play tricks with ordering layers vs transforms. Mu does that a bit, but it becomes hard to mess with, so I'm trying to avoid that. My current plan is for layers within an "abstraction level" to be run in order. Higher layers will necessarily need to come before lower ones. But hopefully this level of hierarchy will help manage the chaos. c) The check for whether an instruction is all hex bytes makes me nervous. I do want to check that an instruction that's just: cd tells the programmer that an operand is missing. The check I currently have is likely not perfectly correct. I *could* put layer 25 in its own commit. But I guess I'm not doing that now. We have a new example program: hello world!
2018-07-26 03:53:43 +00:00
5647 - experimental support for swapping OS
2019-09-12 02:04:49 +00:00
== data
4780
2018-11-26 08:26:20 +00:00
4757 Let's start highlighting all global variables in Red. Assembly programming has a tendency to over-use them. They're a necessary evil, but we should minimize the number of functions that access them.
2018-11-21 03:37:00 +00:00
Size: # size of string
.
2021-03-09 05:24:45 +00:00
0x0d/imm32 # 13
4757 Let's start highlighting all global variables in Red. Assembly programming has a tendency to over-use them. They're a necessary evil, but we should minimize the number of functions that access them.
2018-11-21 03:37:00 +00:00
X: # string to print
.
2021-03-09 05:24:45 +00:00
48 65 6c 6c 6f 20 77 6f 72 6c 64 21 0a 00
# H e l l o ␣ w o r l d ! newline null
4414 - subx: syntax checking This is a large patch, and there's a few things wrong with it: a) Helpers are incredibly messy. I want to use has_metadata in layer 24, but can't since it also does error checking. There must be a better basis set of primitives for managing metadata. b) Layer 22 introduces operands for checking, but programs with operands don't actually run until layer 24. So I can't write non-error scenarios in layer 22. That seems ugly. But if I try to introduce layer 24 first there's nothing left to check after it. I *could* play tricks with ordering layers vs transforms. Mu does that a bit, but it becomes hard to mess with, so I'm trying to avoid that. My current plan is for layers within an "abstraction level" to be run in order. Higher layers will necessarily need to come before lower ones. But hopefully this level of hierarchy will help manage the chaos. c) The check for whether an instruction is all hex bytes makes me nervous. I do want to check that an instruction that's just: cd tells the programmer that an operand is missing. The check I currently have is likely not perfectly correct. I *could* put layer 25 in its own commit. But I guess I'm not doing that now. We have a new example program: hello world!
2018-07-26 03:53:43 +00:00
4802 Some automated commenting cleanup. Still needs more careful manual scanning. sed -i 's/^# 1-3/# . 1-3/' *.subx */*.subx sed -i 's/^# op/# . op/' *.subx */*.subx sed -i 's/# vim/# . . vim/' *.subx */*.subx sed -i 's/^ # push args/ # . . push args/' *.subx */*.subx sed -i 's/^ # discard args/ # . . discard args/' *.subx */*.subx sed -i 's/^ # call/ # . . call/' *.subx */*.subx sed -i 's/^ # prolog/ # . prolog/' *.subx */*.subx sed -i 's/^ # epilog/ # . epilog/' *.subx */*.subx sed -i 's/^ # save registers/ # . save registers/' *.subx */*.subx sed -i 's/^ # restore registers/ # . restore registers/' *.subx */*.subx sed -i 's/ operand / register /' *.subx */*.subx
2018-11-30 19:10:44 +00:00
# . . vim:nowrap:textwidth=0