mirror of
https://github.com/catseye/SixtyPical.git
synced 2024-11-29 03:51:35 +00:00
176 lines
6.7 KiB
Markdown
176 lines
6.7 KiB
Markdown
SixtyPical
|
|
==========
|
|
|
|
_Version 0.16. Work-in-progress, everything is subject to change._
|
|
|
|
**SixtyPical** is a 6502-like programming language with advanced
|
|
static analysis.
|
|
|
|
"6502-like" means that it has similar restrictions as programming
|
|
in 6502 assembly (e.g. the programmer must choose the registers that
|
|
values will be stored in) and is concomitantly easy for a compiler to
|
|
translate it to 6502 machine language code.
|
|
|
|
"Advanced static analysis" includes _abstract interpretation_, where we
|
|
go through the program step by step, tracking not just the changes that
|
|
happen during a _specific_ execution of the program, but _sets_ of changes
|
|
that could _possibly_ happen in any run of the program. This lets us
|
|
determine that certain things can never happen, which we can then formulate
|
|
as safety checks.
|
|
|
|
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 read or write a byte beyond the end of a byte array
|
|
* 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 based on
|
|
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); this
|
|
includes 16-bit values, which are copied in two steps
|
|
* explicit tail calls
|
|
* indirect subroutine calls
|
|
|
|
The reference implementation can analyze and compile SixtyPical programs to
|
|
6502 machine code.
|
|
|
|
Quick Start
|
|
-----------
|
|
|
|
If you have the [VICE][] emulator installed, from this directory, you can run
|
|
|
|
./loadngo.sh c64 eg/c64/hearts.60p
|
|
|
|
and it will compile the [hearts.60p source code](eg/c64/hearts.60p) and
|
|
automatically start it in the `x64` emulator, and you should see:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can try the `loadngo.sh` script on other sources in the `eg` directory
|
|
tree, which contains more extensive examples, including an entire
|
|
game(-like program); see [eg/README.md](eg/README.md) for a listing.
|
|
|
|
[VICE]: http://vice-emu.sourceforge.net/
|
|
|
|
Documentation
|
|
-------------
|
|
|
|
* [Design Goals](doc/Design%20Goals.md)
|
|
* [SixtyPical specification](doc/SixtyPical.md)
|
|
* [SixtyPical revision history](HISTORY.md)
|
|
* [Literate test suite for SixtyPical syntax](tests/SixtyPical%20Syntax.md)
|
|
* [Literate test suite for SixtyPical analysis](tests/SixtyPical%20Analysis.md)
|
|
* [Literate test suite for SixtyPical compilation](tests/SixtyPical%20Compilation.md)
|
|
* [Literate test suite for SixtyPical fallthru optimization](tests/SixtyPical%20Fallthru.md)
|
|
* [6502 Opcodes used/not used in SixtyPical](doc/6502%20Opcodes.md)
|
|
|
|
TODO
|
|
----
|
|
|
|
### `low` and `high` address operators
|
|
|
|
To turn `word` type into `byte`.
|
|
|
|
Trying to remember if we have a compelling case for this or now. The best I can think
|
|
of is for implementing 16-bit `cmp` in an efficient way. Maybe we should see if we
|
|
can get by with 16-bit `cmp` instead though.
|
|
|
|
The problem is that once a byte is extracted, putting it back into a word is awkward.
|
|
The address operators have to modify a destination in a special way. That is, when
|
|
you say `st a, >word`, you are updating `word` to be `word & $ff | a << 8`, somelike.
|
|
Is that consistent with `st`? Well, probably it is, but we have to explain it.
|
|
It might make more sense, then, for it to be "part of the operation" instead of "part of
|
|
the reference"; something like `st.hi x, word`; `st.lo y, word`. Dunno.
|
|
|
|
### Save values
|
|
|
|
This preserves them, so that, semantically, they can be used later even though they
|
|
are trashed (or otherwise alternately used) inside the block.
|
|
|
|
Inside the block, we set them as writeable (but not meaningful). When the block
|
|
exits, we restore whatever status they had.
|
|
|
|
This act will trash `a`, both in the block, and outside it, unless the value being
|
|
saved is `a`. One idiom would be something like
|
|
|
|
save a { save var {
|
|
...
|
|
} }
|
|
|
|
which would save all values. Maybe abbreviate this to
|
|
|
|
save a, var {
|
|
...
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
This can use the stack. But it need not use the stack.
|
|
|
|
### Make all symbols forward-referencable
|
|
|
|
Basically, don't do symbol-table lookups when parsing, but do have a more formal
|
|
"symbol resolution" (linking) phase right after parsing.
|
|
|
|
### Associate each pointer with the buffer it points into
|
|
|
|
Check that the buffer being read or written to through pointer, appears in appropriate
|
|
inputs or outputs set.
|
|
|
|
In the analysis, when we obtain a pointer, we need to record, in contect, what buffer
|
|
that pointer came from.
|
|
|
|
When we write through that pointer, we need to set that buffer as written.
|
|
|
|
When we read through the pointer, we need to check that the buffer is readable.
|
|
|
|
### Table overlays
|
|
|
|
They are uninitialized, but the twist is, the address is a buffer that is
|
|
an input to and/or output of the routine. So, they are defined (insofar
|
|
as the buffer is defined.)
|
|
|
|
They are therefore a "view" of a section of a buffer.
|
|
|
|
This is slightly dangerous since it does permit aliases: the buffer and the
|
|
table refer to the same memory.
|
|
|
|
Although, if they are `static`, you could say, in the routine in which they
|
|
are `static`, as soon as you've established one, you can no longer use the
|
|
buffer; and the ones you establish must be disjoint.
|
|
|
|
(That seems to be the most compelling case for restricting them to `static`.)
|
|
|
|
An alternative would be `static` pointers, which are currently not possible because
|
|
pointers must be zero-page, thus `@`, thus uninitialized.
|
|
|
|
### Question "consistent initialization"
|
|
|
|
Question the value of the "consistent initialization" principle for `if` statement analysis.
|
|
|
|
Part of this is the trashes at the end; I think what it should be is that the trashes
|
|
after the `if` is the union of the trashes in each of the branches; this would obviate the
|
|
need to `trash` values explicitly, but if you tried to access them afterwards, it would still
|
|
error.
|
|
|
|
### Tail-call optimization
|
|
|
|
More generally, define a block as having zero or one `goto`s at the end. (and `goto`s cannot
|
|
appear elsewhere.)
|
|
|
|
If a block ends in a `call` can that be converted to end in a `goto`? Why not? I think it can.
|
|
The constraints should iron out the same both ways.
|
|
|
|
And - once we have this - why do we need `goto` to be in tail position, strictly?
|
|
As long as the routine has consistent type context every place it exits, that should be fine.
|
|
|
|
### "Include" directives
|
|
|
|
Search a searchlist of include paths. And use them to make libraries of routines.
|
|
|
|
One such library routine might be an `interrupt routine` type for various architectures.
|
|
Since "the supervisor" has stored values on the stack, we should be able to trash them
|
|
with impunity, in such a routine.
|