An update: I just rebased wip-rtl-cps on top of wip-rtl-may-2013 and pushed. The most interesting thing was how trivial it was: all I had to do was make a one-line change in how I called `begin-program'.
Best, Noah On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:33 AM, Noah Lavine <noah.b.lav...@gmail.com>wrote: > Hello, > > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> wrote: > >> You should have two names: the original ones and the gensyms that come >> from tree-il. Creating new gensyms should happen when copying or >> fabricating new nodes, as peval does, but in most cases you don't need >> to do it, and in any case it can be tricky. >> >> I would take tree-il as the guide here. >> > > I'll look at it, thanks. > > >> I haven't handled source information yet, but to the CPS->RTL compiler >> it will look like emitting special instructions, like the tree-il->glil >> compiler emits <glil-source> nodes. >> > > That sounds fairly simple to implement. > > >> This is lambda-properties. You just pass them through, and add them to >> the begin-program in the RTL. >> > > Again, this seems relatively simple to do. > > >> Note that wip-rtl-may-2013 and the RTL branches that are under review >> for master are slightly different from the ones you have. Their >> begin-program has a second argument, the procedure properties, and the >> first argument is a label and not a name. They have begin-*-arity and >> end-arity for marking arity information and performing arity prologues. >> There are some slight changes to instructions but not much. OTOH they >> do have some better type checking and a disassembler that works, so many >> things should be easier ;) Compare the rtl.test there and your rtl.test >> for details. >> >> > * Why is there no "let" that can bind functions? You don't always >> > want >> > to set up a recursive binding environment. >> > > I think right now the Tree-IL->CPS compiler will turn (let ((f (lambda > ...))) ...) into something like this: > > ((lambda (f-12345) > .... let body here ....) > (letrec ((f-func (lambda ... f's body here ...))) f-func)) > > (I'm not showing the continuation's name because it would make it even > more complicated than it already is.) > > I agree that this is a crazy way to do it. It should detect this case and > skip the extra steps. > > >> Understood. However the question of language is fundamental for >> enabling collaboration on this code. I would be very happy to see a CPS >> language definition that could express all of Tree-IL. I don't think >> this would take a lot of work -- it is perfectly acceptable to throw >> "unimplemented" for those parts of the compiler that aren't there yet, >> but the language itself should be adequately expressive. IMHO anyway. >> >> Do you think you will have time to do that over the next few days or so? >> Apologies for the pressure, just that I would like to do some things in >> this area and am not sure how best to do them :) >> > > This is interesting - I had been adding to the language as I needed > features, and not really thinking of it as an interface. But you might be > right. I just started rebasing tonight, and I hope to work more on it in > the next two days. But I don't want to be a blocker for your work - what > are you trying to do? > > Thanks a lot, > Noah > >
