4.0 KiB
SixtyPical
Version 0.13. Work-in-progress, everything is subject to change.
SixtyPical is a very low-level programming language, similar to 6502 assembly, with static analysis through abstract interpretation.
In practice, this means it catches things like
- you forgot to clear carry before adding something to the accumulator
- a subroutine that you call trashes a register you thought was preserved
- you tried to write the address of something that was not a routine, to a jump vector
and suchlike. It also provides some convenient operations and abstractions based on common machine-language programming idioms, such as
- copying values from one register to another (via a third register when there are no underlying instructions that directly support it)
- explicit tail calls
- indirect subroutine calls
The reference implementation can analyze and compile SixtyPical programs to 6502 machine code.
Documentation
- Design Goals
- SixtyPical specification
- SixtyPical revision history
- Literate test suite for SixtyPical syntax
- Literate test suite for SixtyPical analysis
- Literate test suite for SixtyPical compilation
- 6502 Opcodes used/not used in SixtyPical
TODO
for
-like loop
We have range-checking in the abstract analysis now, but we lack practical ways to use it.
We can and
a value to ensure it is within a certain range. However, in the 6502
ISA the only register you can and
is A
, while loops are done with X
or Y
.
Insisting this as the way to do it would result in a lot of TXA
s and TAX
s.
What would be better is a dedicated for
loop, like
for x in 0 to 15 {
// in here, we know the range of x is exactly 0-15 inclusive
// also in here: we are disallowed from changing x
}
However, this is slightly restrictive, and hides a lot.
However however, options which do not hide a lot, require a lot of looking at (to ensure: did you increment the loop variable? only once? etc.)
The leading compromise so far is an "open-faced for loop", like
ld x, 15
for x downto 0 {
// same as above
}
This makes it a little more explicit, at least, even though the loop decrementation is still hidden.
Save registers on stack
This preserves them, so that, semantically, they can be used later even though they are trashed inside the block.
Re-order routines and optimize tail-calls to fallthroughs
Not because it saves 3 bytes, but because it's a neat trick. Doing it optimally is probably NP-complete. But doing it adequately is probably not that hard.
Different preludes for different architectures
--prelude=c64-basic
And at some point...
low
andhigh
address operators - to turnword
type intobyte
.const
s that can be used in defining the size of tables, etc.- Tests, and implementation, ensuring a routine can be assigned to a vector of "wider" type
- Related: can we simply view a (small) part of a buffer as a byte table? If not, why not?
- Check that the buffer being read or written to through pointer, appears in approporiate inputs or outputs set. (Associate each pointer with the buffer it points into.)
static
pointers -- currently not possible because pointers must be zero-page, thus@
, thus uninitialized.- Question the value of the "consistent initialization" principle for
if
statement analysis. interrupt
routines -- to indicate that "the supervisor" has stored values on the stack, so we can trash them.- Add absolute addressing in shl/shr, absolute-indexed for add, sub, etc.
- Automatic tail-call optimization (could be tricky, w/constraints?)
- Possibly
ld x, [ptr] + y
, possiblyst x, [ptr] + y
. - Maybe even
copy [ptra] + y, [ptrb] + y
, which can be compiled to indirect LDA then indirect STA!