freenode/#sicl - IRC Chatlog
Search
10:56:05
sm2n
"<beach> One day, I may turn these tools into something generally usable, but I don't have the time to do that now. Perhaps someone else would be interested in such a project."
11:54:04
beach
Cleavir is not stable and exists in two versions. But perhaps CST-to-AST is stable in both versions, so the one in s-expressionists can be used.
11:54:35
beach
The AST-evaluator would then have to be extracted from SICL, but that's a small module.
13:33:46
beach
I made good progress on register allocation today. I have a mysterious ENTER-INSTRUCTION that for some reason has not been processed so that it has explicit argument parsing, and it is not a TOP-LEVEL-ENTER-INSTRUCTION. This mysterious instruction has an output that is not taken into account in the initial register arrangement, so when I hit its successor (which requires the corresponding lexical location), it fails because that
13:35:39
heisig
ACTION was always confused by the distinction of ENTER-INSTRUCTIONs and TOP-LEVEL-ENTER-INSTRUCTIONs
13:37:55
beach
When a FASL file is loaded, it is turned into a function that, when called, executes the top-level forms in the initial code. That function results in an ENTER-INSTRUCTION as usual, but I need to (or at least I used to need) attach more stuff to it than is needed for a normal ENTER-INSTRUCTION.
13:38:29
beach
But now that you mention it, I don't think I need that stuff anymore, so maybe I don't use the TOP-LEVEL-ENTER-INSTRUCTION anymore.
13:39:30
beach
So perhaps it is a top-level ENTER-INSTRUCTION but not a TOP-LEVEL-ENTER-INSTRUCTION, which would explain why it has not had its arguments processed.
13:40:36
beach
I think I need to remind myself how I do the top-level processing these days, before I attempt any "fixes".
13:43:13
heisig
Yes, my gut feeling says there shouldn't be different kinds of enter instructions. Of course my gut feeling might be wrong.
13:44:26
beach
I think the information that I used to stash in the TOP-LEVEL-ENTER-INSTRUCTION is now in the code object. But, again, my bad memory does not remember all this. Hence the need to study what I did.
13:50:10
beach
OK, so it looks like the top-level ENTER-INSTRUCTION is not a TOP-LEVEL-ENTER-INSTRUCTION, and that this top-level ENTER-INSTRUCTION has not been processed for explicit argument processing (which may or may not be correct, I can't remember).
13:50:46
beach
And it does have a lambda list with a single required parameter which is also present in the outputs.
13:52:36
beach
I need to figure out 1. Why this top-level function has not had its argument processed like the nested ones do. 2. Whether the way it is, is deliberate or a bug. 3. What that parameter is about.