semi-stack code

Okay, here's a really, really evil idea. (And yes, bluntly, it's 
triggered by the pie-thon bytecode translator's needs) I need a 
stack, and one that's faster than our current stack which, while 
snappy for what it does, is still burdened by generality. I also need 
a stack that's generally not very big. So...

The fake stack. The idea is this. PMC registers 18-29 are used as a 
12 element stack. PMC register 31 is used as a stack overflow array. 
Integer register I31 is used as the stack depth register. We add in 
the ops:

  fakepush [Px|Ix]

This pushes the contents of Px onto the top of the stack, or pushes 
the stack down by Ix entries. Note that the Ix form does *not* set 
these new slots to anything! They're left as-is, which can be an 
issue for the GC.

  fakepop [ix]

This pops Ix entries off the stack, default of one. Note that there's 
no need for any destination--if you're popping the TOS into a 
register then just do a set first.

  iset Px, Iy

This does a set of register Px to PMC register #Y.

  iset Ix, Py

This sets the PMC register #X to Py.

The last two are pretty standard indirect register access. If someone 
wants to propose a more generic syntax for it we might want to 
generalize on, that's fine--do it *after* OSCON, thanks. :)

The reason for the odd register count and register number usage is 
twofold. First, it leaves some of the top-half registers free for 
other things. Second, the registers used will be 8-byte aligned and a 
multiple of 8 bytes on systems with 4-byte pointers. Not likely a 
huge deal, but it may shave a cycle off here or there, and it does 
mean we have a few spare registers in the upper half.

Note that this stack does *not* need rot, swap, dup, or other funky 
'move the things around' ops, since that can already be done. For 
example:

   dup:
     fakepush 1

   dup2 (the top two entries are duplicated)
     fakepush 2

   swap:
     exchange P18, P19

   rot3:
     exchange P18, P20
     exchange P19, P20

And it means that stack based ops turn to:

    add (pop the top two entries, add them, and push the result):
     new P17
     add P17, P18, P19
     fakepop
     set P18, P17

and something like add-in-place (new TOS = oldTOS+1 + oldTOS):
   add P18, P19, P18
   fakepop

It seems sensible, which of course worries me, as do so many things I 
think are sensible, but I think we should do this--it'll be useful 
for other languages that like being stack based. (If I'd any sense, 
I'd have done this ages ago as it'd have made the forth 
implementation nicer) We should get x86 JIT code for the new ops, 
since I expect they'll be used rather a lot.

Full-fledged tracking of used stack slots within basic blocks with 
register coloring and cross-block register exchanges would, of 
course, make a lot of sense and be faster, but I'm a bit pressed for 
time here, so we'll make do. Only the fake push and pop ops are at 
all odd, so I'll put those in experimental.ops for now. iset will go 
into set.ops, though if we decide that we want a more general 
indirect register access scheme we can see about renaming them. (We 
probably should put in an opname aliasing feature to the pir and pasm 
compilers, but we'll deal with that later, unless someone's feeling 
like a project)
-- 
				Dan

--------------------------------------it's like this-------------------
Dan Sugalski                          even samurai
dan@sidhe.org                         have teddy bears and even
                                       teddy bears get drunk

• semi-stack code by Dan Sugalski
• Re: semi-stack code by Leopold Toetsch
• Re: semi-stack code by Dan Sugalski
• Re: semi-stack code by Leopold Toetsch