mirror of
https://github.com/irmen/prog8.git
synced 2024-09-10 09:54:32 +00:00
95 lines
6.3 KiB
ReStructuredText
95 lines
6.3 KiB
ReStructuredText
TODO
|
|
====
|
|
|
|
- optimize word array assignment to not use tax/tay etc but simply lda+ldx: (note: with and without @split!)
|
|
uword pstep = w_array[index] ->
|
|
ldy p8_index
|
|
lda p8_w_array,y
|
|
ldx p8_w_array+1,y
|
|
sta p8_pstep
|
|
stx p8_pstep+1
|
|
|
|
- gfx2: use vera auto in/decrement in the flood fill routine
|
|
|
|
- [on branch: shortcircuit] investigate McCarthy evaluation again? this may also reduce code size perhaps for things like if a>4 or a<2 ....
|
|
- [on branch: ir-less-branch-opcodes] IR: reduce the number of branch instructions such as BEQ, BEQR, etc (gradually), replace with CMP(I) + status branch instruction
|
|
- IR: reduce amount of CMP/CMPI after instructions that set the status bits correctly (LOADs? INC? etc), but only after setting the status bits is verified!
|
|
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Need help with
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
- getting the IR in shape for code generation
|
|
- atari target: more details details about the machine, fixing library routines. I have no clue whatsoever.
|
|
- see the :ref:`portingguide` for details on what information is needed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Future Things and Ideas
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
Compiler:
|
|
|
|
- Currently "320*240/8/8" gives integer overflow, so: allow constant integer subexpressions to contain out of range integers (>65535 etc) as long as the final constant value is within byte/word range.
|
|
- allow 'chained' array indexing for expressions: value = ptrarray[0][0]
|
|
- allow 'chained' array indexing for assign targets: ptrarray[0][0] = 42 this is just evaluating the lhs as a uword pointer expression
|
|
|
|
- [much work:] more support for (64tass) SEGMENTS ?
|
|
- (What, how, isn't current BSS support enough?)
|
|
- Add a mechanism to allocate variables into golden ram (or segments really) (see GoldenRam class)
|
|
- maybe treat block "golden" in a special way: can only contain vars, every var will be allocated in the Golden ram area?
|
|
- maybe or may not needed: the variables can NOT have initialization values, they will all be set to zero on startup (simple memset)
|
|
just initialize them yourself in start() if you need a non-zero value .
|
|
- OR.... do all this automatically if 'golden' is enabled as a compiler option? So compiler allocates in ZP first, then Golden Ram, then regular ram
|
|
- OR.... make all this more generic and use some %segment option to create real segments for 64tass?
|
|
- (need separate step in codegen and IR to write the "golden" variables)
|
|
|
|
- do we need (array)variable alignment tag instead of block alignment tag? You want to align the data, not the code in the block?
|
|
- ir: block alignment doesn't translate well to variables in the block (the actual stuff that needs to be aligned in memory) but: need variable alignment tag instead of block alignment tag, really
|
|
- ir: idea: (but LLVM IR simply keeps the variables, so not a good idea then?...): replace all scalar variables by an allocated register. Keep a table of the variable to register mapping (including the datatype)
|
|
global initialization values are simply a list of LOAD instructions.
|
|
Variables replaced include all subroutine parameters! So the only variables that remain as variables are arrays and strings.
|
|
- ir: add more optimizations in IRPeepholeOptimizer
|
|
- ir: for expressions with array indexes that occur multiple times, can we avoid loading them into new virtualregs everytime and just reuse a single virtualreg as indexer? (simple form of common subexpression elimination)
|
|
- ir: the @split arrays are currently also split in _lsb/_msb arrays in the IR, and operations take multiple (byte) instructions that may lead to verbose and slow operation and machine code generation down the line.
|
|
maybe another representation is needed once actual codegeneration is done from the IR...?
|
|
- PtAst/IR: more complex common subexpression eliminations
|
|
- [problematic due to using 64tass:] better support for building library programs, where unused .proc shouldn't be deleted from the assembly?
|
|
Perhaps replace all uses of .proc/.pend/.endproc by .block/.bend will fix that with a compiler flag?
|
|
But all library code written in asm uses .proc already..... (textual search/replace when writing the actual asm?)
|
|
Once new codegen is written that is based on the IR, this point is mostly moot anyway as that will have its own dead code removal on the IR level.
|
|
- Zig-like try-based error handling where the V flag could indicate error condition? and/or BRK to jump into monitor on failure? (has to set BRK vector for that) But the V flag is also set on certain normal instructions
|
|
- generate WASM to eventually run prog8 on a browser canvas? Use binaryen toolkit or my binaryen kotlin library?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Libraries:
|
|
|
|
- gfx2 cs_innerloop640() extend number of bytes cleared, and use vera fx cached writes
|
|
- gfx2 horizontal_line and vertical_line: use vera fx cached writes
|
|
- port monogfx, gf2, graphics to the vm
|
|
- use verafx transparent writes to speed up pixel plotting in gfx2 and monogfx modules (avoids read/mask/write)
|
|
- fix the problems in atari target, and flesh out its libraries.
|
|
- c128 target: make syslib more complete (missing kernal routines)?
|
|
- pet32 target: make syslib more complete (missing kernal routines)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Optimizations:
|
|
|
|
- treat every scalar variable decl with initialization value, as const by default, unless the variable gets assigned to somewhere (or has its address taken, or is @shared)
|
|
- VariableAllocator: can we think of a smarter strategy for allocating variables into zeropage, rather than first-come-first-served?
|
|
for instance, vars used inside loops first, then loopvars, then uwords used as pointers, then the rest
|
|
- various optimizers skip stuff if compTarget.name==VMTarget.NAME. Once 6502-codegen is done from IR code,
|
|
those checks should probably be removed, or be made permanent
|
|
|
|
|
|
STRUCTS again?
|
|
--------------
|
|
|
|
What if we were to re-introduce Structs in prog8? Some thoughts:
|
|
|
|
- can contain only numeric types (byte,word,float) - no nested structs, no reference types (strings, arrays) inside structs
|
|
- only as a reference type (uword pointer). This removes a lot of the problems related to introducing a variable length value type.
|
|
- arrays of struct is just an array of uword pointers. Can even be @split?
|
|
- need to introduce typed pointer datatype in prog8
|
|
- str is then syntactic sugar for pointer to character/byte?
|
|
- arrays are then syntactic sugar for pointer to byte/word/float?
|