mirror of
https://github.com/irmen/prog8.git
synced 2024-11-23 07:32:10 +00:00
99 lines
6.9 KiB
ReStructuredText
99 lines
6.9 KiB
ReStructuredText
|
|
TODO
|
|
====
|
|
|
|
- 'audio' or 'kaudio' or 'romutils' to contain prog8 definitions for the rom bank 10 audio routines
|
|
and a wrapper to call x16edit with costomization
|
|
|
|
- verafx vram-vram copy routine?
|
|
set the cache fill and cache write bits in fx ctrl, set one data port's increment to 1 and the other one to 4,
|
|
Assuming your writes are aligned to 32-bit boundaries, do four reads from the increment-1 port
|
|
(ex: lda DATA1 ; 4 times) and then stz the other one (stz DATA0).
|
|
The cache is loaded by the DATA1 reads, and the contents are written out with the DATA0 write, 4 bytes at once.
|
|
|
|
- [on branch: call-pointers] allow calling a subroutine via a pointer variable (indirect JSR, optimized form of callfar())
|
|
modify programs (shell, paint) that now use callfar
|
|
|
|
- [on branch: shortcircuit] investigate McCarthy evaluation again? this may also reduce code size perhaps for things like if a>4 or a<2 ....
|
|
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Future Things and Ideas
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
Compiler:
|
|
|
|
- (after shortcircuit is in:) What happens when we make all subs return a boolean not as ubyte in A, but in the cpu's Carry flag?
|
|
- What happens when we keep the BOOL type around until in codegen? (so, get rid of Boolean->ubyte and boolean remover)
|
|
- Multidimensional arrays and chained indexing, purely as syntactic sugar over regular arrays.
|
|
- make a form of "manual generics" possible like: varsub routine(T arg)->T where T is expanded to a specific type
|
|
(this is already done hardcoded for several of the builtin functions)
|
|
|
|
- [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: getting it in shape for code generation
|
|
- ir: related to the one above: 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? (this is a 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?
|
|
- add Vic20 target
|
|
|
|
Libraries:
|
|
|
|
- once a VAL_1 implementation is merged into the X16 kernal properly, remove all the workarounds in cx16 floats.parse_f() . Prototype parse routine in examples/cx16/floatparse.p8
|
|
- 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:
|
|
|
|
- give a warning for variables that could be a const - or even make them a const (if not @shared)?
|
|
- 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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other language/syntax features to think about
|
|
---------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
- add (rom/ram)bank support to romsub. A call will then automatically switch banks, use callfar and something else when in banked ram.
|
|
challenges: how to not make this too X16 specific? How does the compiler know what bank to switch (ram/rom)?
|
|
- chained comparisons `10<x<20` , `x==y==z` (desugars to `10<x and x<20`, `x==y and y==z`) BUT this changes the semantics of what it is right now ! (x==(y==z) --> x==true)
|
|
- negative array index to refer to an element from the end of the array. Python `[-1]` or Raku syntax `[\*-1]` , `[\*/2]` .... \*=size of the array
|