45 lines
2.8 KiB
Plaintext
45 lines
2.8 KiB
Plaintext
|
%p I am not stuck. I know i’m not. Just because there is little visible progress doesn’t mean i’m stuck. It may just feel like it though.
|
|||
|
|
%p But like little cogwheels in the clock, i can hear the background process ticking away and sometimes there is a gong.
|
|||
|
|
%p What i wasn’t stuck with, is where to draw the layer for the vm.
|
|||
|
|
%h3#layers Layers
|
|||
|
|
%p
|
|||
|
|
Software engineers like layers. Like the onion boy. You can draw boxes, make presentation and convince your boss.
|
|||
|
|
They help us to reason about the software.
|
|||
|
|
%p
|
|||
|
|
In this case the model was to go from ast layer to a vm layer. Via a compile method, that could just as well have been a
|
|||
|
|
visitor.
|
|||
|
|
%p
|
|||
|
|
That didn’t work, too big astep and so it was from ast, to vm, to neumann. But i couldn’t decide
|
|||
|
|
on the abstraction of the virtual machine layer. Specifically, when you have a send (and you have
|
|||
|
|
soo many sends in ruby), do you:
|
|||
|
|
%ul
|
|||
|
|
%li model it as a vm instruction (a bit like java)
|
|||
|
|
%li implement it in a couple instructions like resolve, a loop and call
|
|||
|
|
%li go to a version that is clearly translatable to neumann, say without the value type implementation
|
|||
|
|
%p
|
|||
|
|
Obviously the third is where we need to get to, as the next step is the neumann layer and somewhow
|
|||
|
|
we need to get there. In effect one could take those three and present them as layers, not
|
|||
|
|
as alternatives like i have.
|
|||
|
|
%h3#passes Passes
|
|||
|
|
%p
|
|||
|
|
And then the little cob went click, and the idea of passes resurfaced. LLvm has these passes on
|
|||
|
|
the code tree, is probably where it surfaced from.
|
|||
|
|
%p
|
|||
|
|
So we can have as high of a degree of abstraction as possible when going from ast to code.
|
|||
|
|
And then have as many passes over that as we want / need.
|
|||
|
|
%p
|
|||
|
|
Passes can be order dependent, and create more and more detail. To solve the above layer
|
|||
|
|
conundrum, we just do a pass for each of those options.
|
|||
|
|
%p The two main benefits that come from this are:
|
|||
|
|
%p
|
|||
|
|
1 - At each point, ie after and during each pass we can analyse the data. Imagine for example
|
|||
|
|
that we would have picked the second layer option, that means there would never have been a
|
|||
|
|
representation where the sends would have been explicit. Thus any analysis of them would be impossible or need reverse engineering (eg call graph analysis, or class caching)
|
|||
|
|
%p
|
|||
|
|
2 - Passes can be gems or come from other sources. The mechanism can be relatively oblivious to
|
|||
|
|
specific passes. And they make the transformation explicit, ie easier to understand.
|
|||
|
|
In the example of having picked the second layer level, one would have to patch the
|
|||
|
|
implementation of that transformation to achieve a different result. With passes it would be
|
|||
|
|
a matter of replacing a pass, thus explicitly stating “i want a non-standard send implementation”
|
|||
|
|
%p Actually a third benefit is that it makes testing simpler. More modular. Just test the initial ast->code and then mostly the results of passes.
|