mu/035labels.cc

417 lines
14 KiB
C++
Raw Normal View History

2018-07-27 17:58:15 +00:00
//: Labels are defined by ending names with a ':'. This layer will compute
//: displacements for labels, and compute the offset for instructions using them.
//:
//: We won't check this, but our convention will be that jump targets will
//: start with a '$', while functions will not. Function names will never be
//: jumped to, and jump targets will never be called.
2018-07-27 17:58:15 +00:00
2018-08-09 06:28:58 +00:00
//: We're introducing non-number names for the first time, so it's worth
//: laying down some ground rules all transforms will follow, so things don't
//: get too confusing:
//: - if it starts with a digit, it's treated as a number. If it can't be
//: parsed as hex it will raise an error.
//: - if it starts with '-' it's treated as a number.
//: - if it starts with '0x' it's treated as a number.
//: - if it's two characters long, it can't be a name. Either it's a hex
//: byte, or it raises an error.
//: That's it. Names can start with any non-digit that isn't a dash. They can
//: be a single character long. 'a' is not a hex number, it's a variable.
//: Later layers may add more conventions partitioning the space of names. But
//: the above rules will remain inviolate.
//: One special label is 'Entry', the address to start running the program at.
//: It can be non-unique; the last declaration overrides earlier ones.
//: It must exist in a program. Otherwise we don't know where to start running
//: programs.
void test_Entry_label() {
5001 - drop the :(scenario) DSL 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.
2019-03-13 01:56:55 +00:00
run(
"== code 0x1\n"
5001 - drop the :(scenario) DSL 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.
2019-03-13 01:56:55 +00:00
"05 0x0d0c0b0a/imm32\n"
"Entry:\n"
"05 0x0d0c0b0a/imm32\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"run: 0x00000006 opcode: 05\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_DOESNT_CONTAIN("run: 0x00000001 opcode: 05");
}
:(before "End looks_like_hex_int(s) Detectors")
if (SIZE(s) == 2) return true;
5001 - drop the :(scenario) DSL 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.
2019-03-13 01:56:55 +00:00
:(code)
void test_pack_immediate_ignores_single_byte_nondigit_operand() {
Hide_errors = true;
transform(
"== code 0x1\n"
5001 - drop the :(scenario) DSL 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.
2019-03-13 01:56:55 +00:00
"b9/copy a/imm32\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"transform: packing instruction 'b9/copy a/imm32'\n"
// no change (we're just not printing metadata to the trace)
"transform: instruction after packing: 'b9 a'\n"
);
}
5001 - drop the :(scenario) DSL 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.
2019-03-13 01:56:55 +00:00
void test_pack_immediate_ignores_3_hex_digit_operand() {
Hide_errors = true;
transform(
"== code 0x1\n"
5001 - drop the :(scenario) DSL 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.
2019-03-13 01:56:55 +00:00
"b9/copy aaa/imm32\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"transform: packing instruction 'b9/copy aaa/imm32'\n"
// no change (we're just not printing metadata to the trace)
"transform: instruction after packing: 'b9 aaa'\n"
);
}
5001 - drop the :(scenario) DSL 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.
2019-03-13 01:56:55 +00:00
void test_pack_immediate_ignores_non_hex_operand() {
Hide_errors = true;
transform(
"== code 0x1\n"
5001 - drop the :(scenario) DSL 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.
2019-03-13 01:56:55 +00:00
"b9/copy xxx/imm32\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"transform: packing instruction 'b9/copy xxx/imm32'\n"
// no change (we're just not printing metadata to the trace)
"transform: instruction after packing: 'b9 xxx'\n"
);
}
//: a helper we'll find handy later
void check_valid_name(const string& s) {
if (s.empty()) {
raise << "empty name!\n" << end();
return;
}
if (s.at(0) == '-')
raise << "'" << s << "' starts with '-', which can be confused with a negative number; use a different name\n" << end();
if (s.substr(0, 2) == "0x") {
raise << "'" << s << "' looks like a hex number; use a different name\n" << end();
return;
}
if (isdigit(s.at(0)))
2019-07-25 18:19:56 +00:00
raise << "'" << s << "' starts with a digit, and so can be confused with a number; use a different name.\n" << end();
if (SIZE(s) == 2)
2019-07-25 18:19:56 +00:00
raise << "'" << s << "' is two characters long, which can look like raw hex bytes at a glance; use a different name\n" << end();
}
2018-08-09 06:28:58 +00:00
//: Now that that's done, let's start using names as labels.
5001 - drop the :(scenario) DSL 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.
2019-03-13 01:56:55 +00:00
void test_map_label() {
transform(
"== code 0x1\n"
5001 - drop the :(scenario) DSL 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.
2019-03-13 01:56:55 +00:00
"loop:\n"
" 05 0x0d0c0b0a/imm32\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"transform: label 'loop' is at address 1\n"
);
}
2018-07-27 17:58:15 +00:00
2018-08-05 04:29:58 +00:00
:(before "End Level-2 Transforms")
2018-07-27 19:33:08 +00:00
Transform.push_back(rewrite_labels);
2018-07-27 17:58:15 +00:00
:(code)
2018-07-27 19:33:08 +00:00
void rewrite_labels(program& p) {
trace(3, "transform") << "-- rewrite labels" << end();
2018-07-27 17:58:15 +00:00
if (p.segments.empty()) return;
segment& code = *find(p, "code");
map<string, int32_t> byte_index; // values are unsigned, but we're going to do subtractions on them so they need to fit in 31 bits
compute_byte_indices_for_labels(code, byte_index);
2018-07-27 17:58:15 +00:00
if (trace_contains_errors()) return;
drop_labels(code);
if (trace_contains_errors()) return;
replace_labels_with_displacements(code, byte_index);
if (contains_key(byte_index, "Entry"))
p.entry = code.start + get(byte_index, "Entry");
2018-07-27 17:58:15 +00:00
}
void compute_byte_indices_for_labels(const segment& code, map<string, int32_t>& byte_index) {
2018-07-27 17:58:15 +00:00
int current_byte = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < SIZE(code.lines); ++i) {
const line& inst = code.lines.at(i);
if (Source_lines_file.is_open() && !inst.original.empty() && /*not a label*/ *inst.words.at(0).data.rbegin() != ':')
Source_lines_file << "0x" << HEXWORD << (code.start + current_byte) << ' ' << inst.original << '\n';
2018-07-27 17:58:15 +00:00
for (int j = 0; j < SIZE(inst.words); ++j) {
const word& curr = inst.words.at(j);
// hack: if we have any operand metadata left after previous transforms,
// deduce its size
// Maybe we should just move this transform to before instruction
// packing, and deduce the size of *all* operands. But then we'll also
// have to deal with bitfields.
if (has_operand_metadata(curr, "disp32") || has_operand_metadata(curr, "imm32")) {
2018-07-27 17:58:15 +00:00
if (*curr.data.rbegin() == ':')
raise << "'" << to_string(inst) << "': don't use ':' when jumping to labels\n" << end();
current_byte += 4;
}
else if (has_operand_metadata(curr, "disp16")) {
if (*curr.data.rbegin() == ':')
raise << "'" << to_string(inst) << "': don't use ':' when jumping to labels\n" << end();
current_byte += 2;
}
2018-07-27 17:58:15 +00:00
// automatically handle /disp8 and /imm8 here
else if (*curr.data.rbegin() != ':') {
++current_byte;
}
else {
2018-08-08 23:36:19 +00:00
string label = drop_last(curr.data);
2018-08-09 06:21:41 +00:00
// ensure labels look sufficiently different from raw hex
check_valid_name(label);
if (trace_contains_errors()) return;
2018-07-27 17:58:15 +00:00
if (contains_any_operand_metadata(curr))
2018-07-27 18:01:44 +00:00
raise << "'" << to_string(inst) << "': label definition (':') not allowed in operand\n" << end();
2018-07-27 18:05:54 +00:00
if (j > 0)
2018-07-27 17:58:15 +00:00
raise << "'" << to_string(inst) << "': labels can only be the first word in a line.\n" << end();
2019-04-28 04:33:26 +00:00
if (Labels_file.is_open())
Labels_file << "0x" << HEXWORD << (code.start + current_byte) << ' ' << label << '\n';
if (contains_key(byte_index, label) && label != "Entry") {
2018-12-26 07:00:55 +00:00
raise << "duplicate label '" << label << "'\n" << end();
return;
}
put(byte_index, label, current_byte);
2018-07-27 19:33:08 +00:00
trace(99, "transform") << "label '" << label << "' is at address " << (current_byte+code.start) << end();
2018-07-27 18:05:54 +00:00
// no modifying current_byte; label definitions won't be in the final binary
2018-07-27 17:58:15 +00:00
}
}
}
}
:(before "End Globals")
2019-04-28 04:33:26 +00:00
bool Dump_debug_info = false; // currently used only by 'subx translate'
ofstream Labels_file;
ofstream Source_lines_file;
:(before "End Commandline Options")
2019-04-28 04:33:26 +00:00
else if (is_equal(*arg, "--debug")) {
Dump_debug_info = true;
// End --debug Settings
}
2019-04-28 04:33:26 +00:00
//: wait to open "labels" for writing until we're sure we aren't trying to read it
:(after "Begin subx translate")
2019-04-28 04:33:26 +00:00
if (Dump_debug_info) {
cerr << "saving address->label information to 'labels'\n";
Labels_file.open("labels");
cerr << "saving address->source information to 'source_lines'\n";
Source_lines_file.open("source_lines");
2019-04-28 04:33:26 +00:00
}
:(before "End subx translate")
if (Dump_debug_info) {
2019-04-28 04:33:26 +00:00
Labels_file.close();
Source_lines_file.close();
}
:(code)
2018-07-27 17:58:15 +00:00
void drop_labels(segment& code) {
for (int i = 0; i < SIZE(code.lines); ++i) {
line& inst = code.lines.at(i);
2018-07-27 20:26:12 +00:00
vector<word>::iterator new_end = remove_if(inst.words.begin(), inst.words.end(), is_label);
inst.words.erase(new_end, inst.words.end());
2018-07-27 17:58:15 +00:00
}
}
bool is_label(const word& w) {
return *w.data.rbegin() == ':';
}
void replace_labels_with_displacements(segment& code, const map<string, int32_t>& byte_index) {
int32_t byte_index_next_instruction_starts_at = 0;
2018-07-27 20:26:12 +00:00
for (int i = 0; i < SIZE(code.lines); ++i) {
line& inst = code.lines.at(i);
byte_index_next_instruction_starts_at += num_bytes(inst);
2018-07-27 20:26:12 +00:00
line new_inst;
for (int j = 0; j < SIZE(inst.words); ++j) {
const word& curr = inst.words.at(j);
if (contains_key(byte_index, curr.data)) {
int32_t displacement = static_cast<int32_t>(get(byte_index, curr.data)) - byte_index_next_instruction_starts_at;
if (has_operand_metadata(curr, "disp8")) {
2019-03-18 05:57:42 +00:00
if (displacement > 0x7f || displacement < -0x7f)
raise << "'" << to_string(inst) << "': label too far away for displacement " << std::hex << displacement << " to fit in 8 signed bits\n" << end();
2018-07-27 20:26:12 +00:00
else
emit_hex_bytes(new_inst, displacement, 1);
2018-07-27 20:26:12 +00:00
}
else if (has_operand_metadata(curr, "disp16")) {
2019-03-18 05:57:42 +00:00
if (displacement > 0x7fff || displacement < -0x7fff)
raise << "'" << to_string(inst) << "': label too far away for displacement " << std::hex << displacement << " to fit in 16 signed bits\n" << end();
2018-07-27 20:26:12 +00:00
else
emit_hex_bytes(new_inst, displacement, 2);
2018-07-27 20:26:12 +00:00
}
else if (has_operand_metadata(curr, "disp32")) {
emit_hex_bytes(new_inst, displacement, 4);
} else if (has_operand_metadata(curr, "imm32")) {
emit_hex_bytes(new_inst, code.start + get(byte_index, curr.data), 4);
2018-07-27 20:26:12 +00:00
}
}
else {
new_inst.words.push_back(curr);
}
}
inst.words.swap(new_inst.words);
trace(99, "transform") << "instruction after transform: '" << data_to_string(inst) << "'" << end();
}
}
string data_to_string(const line& inst) {
ostringstream out;
for (int i = 0; i < SIZE(inst.words); ++i) {
if (i > 0) out << ' ';
out << inst.words.at(i).data;
}
return out.str();
2018-07-27 17:58:15 +00:00
}
2018-08-08 23:36:19 +00:00
string drop_last(const string& s) {
return string(s.begin(), --s.end());
}
2018-07-27 17:58:15 +00:00
//: Label definitions must be the first word on a line. No jumping inside
//: instructions.
//: They should also be the only word on a line.
//: However, you can absolutely have multiple labels map to the same address,
//: as long as they're on separate lines.
5001 - drop the :(scenario) DSL 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.
2019-03-13 01:56:55 +00:00
void test_multiple_labels_at() {
transform(
"== code 0x1\n"
5001 - drop the :(scenario) DSL 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.
2019-03-13 01:56:55 +00:00
// address 1
"loop:\n"
" $loop2:\n"
// address 1 (labels take up no space)
" 05 0x0d0c0b0a/imm32\n"
// address 6
" eb $loop2/disp8\n"
// address 8
" eb $loop3/disp8\n"
// address 0xa
" $loop3:\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"transform: label 'loop' is at address 1\n"
"transform: label '$loop2' is at address 1\n"
"transform: label '$loop3' is at address a\n"
// first jump is to -7
"transform: instruction after transform: 'eb f9'\n"
// second jump is to 0 (fall through)
"transform: instruction after transform: 'eb 00'\n"
);
}
2018-08-08 23:36:19 +00:00
void test_loading_label_as_imm32() {
transform(
"== code 0x1\n"
"label:\n"
2019-04-19 04:05:02 +00:00
" be/copy-to-ESI label/imm32\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"transform: label 'label' is at address 1\n"
"transform: instruction after transform: 'be 01 00 00 00'\n"
2019-04-19 04:05:02 +00:00
);
}
5001 - drop the :(scenario) DSL 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.
2019-03-13 01:56:55 +00:00
void test_duplicate_label() {
Hide_errors = true;
transform(
"== code 0x1\n"
5001 - drop the :(scenario) DSL 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.
2019-03-13 01:56:55 +00:00
"loop:\n"
"loop:\n"
" 05 0x0d0c0b0a/imm32\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"error: duplicate label 'loop'\n"
);
}
2018-12-26 07:00:55 +00:00
5001 - drop the :(scenario) DSL 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.
2019-03-13 01:56:55 +00:00
void test_label_too_short() {
Hide_errors = true;
transform(
"== code 0x1\n"
5001 - drop the :(scenario) DSL 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.
2019-03-13 01:56:55 +00:00
"xz:\n"
" 05 0x0d0c0b0a/imm32\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
2019-07-25 18:19:56 +00:00
"error: 'xz' is two characters long, which can look like raw hex bytes at a glance; use a different name\n"
5001 - drop the :(scenario) DSL 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.
2019-03-13 01:56:55 +00:00
);
}
2018-08-09 06:21:41 +00:00
5001 - drop the :(scenario) DSL 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.
2019-03-13 01:56:55 +00:00
void test_label_hex() {
Hide_errors = true;
transform(
"== code 0x1\n"
5001 - drop the :(scenario) DSL 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.
2019-03-13 01:56:55 +00:00
"0xab:\n"
" 05 0x0d0c0b0a/imm32\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"error: '0xab' looks like a hex number; use a different name\n"
);
}
5001 - drop the :(scenario) DSL 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.
2019-03-13 01:56:55 +00:00
void test_label_negative_hex() {
Hide_errors = true;
transform(
"== code 0x1\n"
5001 - drop the :(scenario) DSL 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.
2019-03-13 01:56:55 +00:00
"-a:\n"
" 05 0x0d0c0b0a/imm32\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"error: '-a' starts with '-', which can be confused with a negative number; use a different name\n"
);
}
2018-09-20 20:42:57 +00:00
//: As said up top, the 'Entry' label is special.
//: It can be non-unique; the last declaration overrides earlier ones.
//: It must exist in a program. Otherwise we don't know where to start running
//: programs.
void test_duplicate_Entry_label() {
transform(
"== code 0x1\n"
"Entry:\n"
"Entry:\n"
" 05 0x0d0c0b0a/imm32\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_DOESNT_CONTAIN_ERRORS();
}
// This test could do with some refactoring.
// We're duplicating the flow inside `subx translate`, but without
// reading/writing files.
// We can't just use run(string) because most of our tests allow programs
// without 'Entry' labels, as a convenience.
void test_programs_without_Entry_label() {
Hide_errors = true;
program p;
istringstream in(
"== code 0x1\n"
"05 0x0d0c0b0a/imm32\n"
"05 0x0d0c0b0a/imm32\n"
);
parse(in, p);
transform(p);
ostringstream dummy;
save_elf(p, dummy);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"error: no 'Entry' label found\n"
);
}
2018-09-20 20:42:57 +00:00
//: now that we have labels, we need to adjust segment size computation to
//: ignore them.
5001 - drop the :(scenario) DSL 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.
2019-03-13 01:56:55 +00:00
void test_segment_size_ignores_labels() {
transform(
"== code 0x09000074\n"
5001 - drop the :(scenario) DSL 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.
2019-03-13 01:56:55 +00:00
" 05/add 0x0d0c0b0a/imm32\n" // 5 bytes
"foo:\n" // 0 bytes
"== data 0x0a000000\n"
5001 - drop the :(scenario) DSL 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.
2019-03-13 01:56:55 +00:00
"bar:\n"
" 00\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"transform: segment 1 begins at address 0x0a000079\n"
);
}
2018-09-20 20:42:57 +00:00
:(before "End size_of(word w) Special-cases")
else if (is_label(w))
return 0;