The push is complete. If I'm not mistaken, you should now see a wip-rtl-cps branch with a Tree-IL->CPS compiler. The compiler is used in cps.test. Please let me know if I did anything wrong.
Noah On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Noah Lavine <noah.b.lav...@gmail.com>wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> On Thu 24 Jan 2013 14:50, Noah Lavine <noah.b.lav...@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > Thanks for the review! There has actually been more progress since I >> > pushed that branch. I hit a point in the CPS->RTL stuff where I had >> > trouble because I didn't know how to do things (like mutable variables) >> > in RTL. So I've actually ported the compiler to GLIL in a branch on my >> > computer. I also have a working Tree-IL->CPS compiler for some of >> > Tree-IL (it's not done yet). >> > >> > I thought that might be a better way forward because CPS and RTL are, to >> > a certain extent, separate ideas. >> >> Cool, please push so we can see. >> > > Given the rest of your email, maybe I'll move the Tree-IL->CPS compiler > back to wip-cps-rtl branch and push that. > > >> Honestly I think RTL and CPS go together very well. CPS is all about >> giving a name to everything, but that can be inefficient in a stack VM, >> because referencing and updating named variables requires separate push >> and pop instructions. RTL makes this easy and cheap. >> > > Yes, I hadn't thought about that. RTL does make sense. > > >> Regarding mutable variables: we probably still need to box them in >> general because of call/cc. There are cases in which they can be >> unboxed, but I think that store-to-load forwarding with DCE can probably >> recover many of those cases. Dunno. I would box them as part of an >> assignment conversion pass. >> > > I think I was imagining about the same thing you're thinking. > > >> > I realize it might be confusing to start with CPS->RTL, then switch to >> > CPS->GLIL, then switch back later when the RTL branch is ready. If you'd >> > rather do it that way, we can skip the CPS->GLIL phase. >> >> Personally I would prefer to target RTL. But that is a personal opinion >> :) >> > > I'm happy to! You've convinced me that it's better. I see that you just > implemented toplevel-refs, too, so my problem is solved. > > Best, > Noah > >
