[<<][staapl][>>][..]
Fri Apr 17 12:32:10 CEST 2009

asm/dasm cleanup

So, the idea is that asm and dasm become integral parts of the
language tower, to allow compile-time checks (type checking) and
partial evaluation based on abstract interpretation.

The challenge is going to be to get a better idea of what is static
and what is dynamic.  The confusion is rooted in the type of
application: it is a code transformer, so should all code transforming
code be scheme compile-time code or not?

next:

  * referential transparency for asm and dasm. (replace parameters
    with explicit environment objects).

  * syntax cleanup for signed/unsigned relative/absolute addressing


It's probably best to focus on dasm for now, since it's simpler.  Asm
also contains a link to target dictionary.

next:

  * add address input to dasm
  * add type convertors to dasm

type converters

the main decision is: run time (interpretation) or compile time
conversion?  let's tick to run-time, and move to compile time when
necessary.

what is needed is the analogue of this:
(define (paramclass->asm name)
  (case name
    ((R)  #'asm+/pcr) ;; used for relative jumps
    (else #'asm+)))   ;; assemble value ignoring overflow

Ok. Using this:

(define (paramclass->dasm name)
  (case name
    ((R)  #'dasm/pcr)
    (else #'dasm/unsigned)))


we will do parameter class translation at compile time:

box> (dasm-lambda-tx #'foo #'(a R) #'(((123 10) (a 1) (R 5))))
(lambda (temp12)
  (let-values (((temp13 a R) (disassemble/values '(10 1 5) temp12)))
    (and (= temp13 123) (list 'foo (dasm/unsigned a) (dasm/pcr R)))))




[Reply][About]
[<<][staapl][>>][..]