2016-10-31 22:42 GMT+01:00 commits@source.squeak.org:
Eliot Miranda uploaded a new version of VMMaker to project VM Maker: http://source.squeak.org/VMMaker/VMMaker.oscog-eem.1972.mcz
==================== Summary ====================
Name: VMMaker.oscog-eem.1972 Author: eem Time: 31 October 2016, 2:42:12.362675 pm UUID: 0e6a54ad-d62f-4b69-9f0d-7b66f8350984 Ancestors: VMMaker.oscog-eem.1971
Redo fixing extB sign extension in NewsqueakV4 & SistaV1 extPushIntegerBytecode & extUnconditionalJump in interpreter and Cogit using bitShift: 8 instead of << 8. Slang seems to generate the correct code with bitAShift:, but not with <<.
Hi Eliot, it would have worked if you would have used bitOr: instead of + I'd say bitOr: better fits the intention: you want to assemble the bits, you do not really want to perform arithmetic here.
Also, the result we are after is a signed int, so consider that << is doing the right thing, it gives you a signed int. The expression you propose is unsigned. It works OK in this context, because we assign immediately to a signed int. But for a more general usage, it could deceive the inliner (for example if variable is automatically typed or eliminated...)
=============== Diff against VMMaker.oscog-eem.1971 ===============
Item was changed: ----- Method: SimpleStackBasedCogit>>genExtPushIntegerBytecode (in category 'bytecode generators') ----- genExtPushIntegerBytecode "NewsqueakV4: 229 11100101 iiiiiiii Push Integer #iiiiiiii (+ Extend B * 256, where bbbbbbbb = sddddddd, e.g. -32768 = i=0, a=0, s=1) SistaV1: 232 11101000 iiiiiiii Push Integer #iiiiiiii (+ Extend B * 256, where bbbbbbbb = sddddddd, e.g. -32768 = i=0, a=0, s=1)" | value |
value := byte1 + ((extB > 127 ifTrue: [extB - 256] ifFalse:[extB]) bitShift: 8).
value := byte1 + ((extB > 127 ifTrue: [extB - 256] ifFalse:[extB]) << 8). extB := 0. ^self genPushLiteral: (objectMemory integerObjectOf: value)!
Item was changed: ----- Method: SimpleStackBasedCogit>>genExtUnconditionalJump (in category 'bytecode generators') ----- genExtUnconditionalJump "242 11110010 i i i i i i i i Jump i i i i i i i i (+ Extend B * 256, where bbbbbbbb = sddddddd, e.g. -32768 = i=0, a=0, s=1)" | distance target |
distance := byte1 + ((extB > 127 ifTrue: [extB - 256] ifFalse:[extB]) bitShift: 8).
distance := byte1 + ((extB > 127 ifTrue: [extB - 256] ifFalse:[extB]) << 8). self assert: distance = (self v4: (self generatorAt: byte0) Long: bytecodePC Branch: (extA ~= 0 ifTrue: [1] ifFalse: [0]) + (extB ~= 0 ifTrue: [1] ifFalse: [0]) Distance: methodObj). extB := 0. target := distance + 2 + bytecodePC. distance < 0 ifTrue: [^self genJumpBackTo: target]. self genJumpTo: target. "The bytecode must be mapped since it can be either forward or backward, and backwards branches must be mapped. So if forward, we need to map." self annotateBytecode: self lastOpcode. ^0!
Item was changed: ----- Method: SimpleStackBasedCogit>>v4:Long:Branch:Distance: (in category 'span functions') ----- v4: descriptor Long: pc Branch: nExts Distance: aMethodObj "242 11110010 i i i i i i i i Jump i i i i i i i i (+ Extend B * 256, where bbbbbbbb = sddddddd, e.g. -32768 = i=0, a=0, s=1)" <var: #descriptor type: #'BytecodeDescriptor *'> | extBValue | self assert: nExts >= 0. self parseV4Exts: nExts priorTo: pc in: aMethodObj into: [:ea :eb| extBValue := eb]. ^(objectMemory fetchByte: pc + 1 ofObject: aMethodObj)
+ (extBValue bitShift: 8)!
+ (extBValue << 8)!Item was changed: ----- Method: StackInterpreter>>extPushIntegerBytecode (in category 'stack bytecodes') ----- extPushIntegerBytecode "229 11100101 i i i i i i i i Push Integer #iiiiiiii (+ Extend B * 256, where bbbbbbbb = sddddddd, e.g. -32768 = i=0, a=0, s=1)" | value |
value := self fetchByte + ((extB > 127 ifTrue: [extB - 256]ifFalse: [extB]) bitShift: 8).
value := self fetchByte + ((extB > 127 ifTrue: [extB - 256]ifFalse: [extB]) << 8). self fetchNextBytecode. extB := 0. self internalPush: (objectMemory integerObjectOf: value)!
Item was changed: ----- Method: StackInterpreter>>extUnconditionalJump (in category 'jump bytecodes') ----- extUnconditionalJump "242 11110010 i i i i i i i i Jump i i i i i i i i (+ Extend B * 256, where bbbbbbbb = sddddddd, e.g. -32768 = i=0, a=0, s=1)" | byte offset | byte := self fetchByte.
offset := byte + ((extB > 127 ifTrue: [extB - 256] ifFalse:[extB]) bitShift: 8).
offset := byte + ((extB > 127 ifTrue: [extB - 256] ifFalse:[extB]) << 8). extB := 0. localIP := localIP + offset. self ifBackwardsCheckForEvents: offset. self fetchNextBytecode!
Hi Nicolas,
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Nicolas Cellier < nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com> wrote:
2016-10-31 22:42 GMT+01:00 commits@source.squeak.org:
Eliot Miranda uploaded a new version of VMMaker to project VM Maker: http://source.squeak.org/VMMaker/VMMaker.oscog-eem.1972.mcz
==================== Summary ====================
Name: VMMaker.oscog-eem.1972 Author: eem Time: 31 October 2016, 2:42:12.362675 pm UUID: 0e6a54ad-d62f-4b69-9f0d-7b66f8350984 Ancestors: VMMaker.oscog-eem.1971
Redo fixing extB sign extension in NewsqueakV4 & SistaV1 extPushIntegerBytecode & extUnconditionalJump in interpreter and Cogit using bitShift: 8 instead of << 8. Slang seems to generate the correct code with bitAShift:, but not with <<.
Hi Eliot, it would have worked if you would have used bitOr: instead of + I'd say bitOr: better fits the intention: you want to assemble the bits, you do not really want to perform arithmetic here.
OK, but in 2's complement they do the same thing, so + sdeems just as good for me.
Also, the result we are after is a signed int, so consider that << is doing the right thing, it gives you a signed int.
That's not what Slang generated. It generated a cast to usqInt.
The expression you propose is unsigned. It works OK in this context, because we assign immediately to a signed int. But for a more general usage, it could deceive the inliner (for example if variable is automatically typed or eliminated...)
Well, we have signed right shifts, but no signed left shifts. What I really want is a signed left shift but chose not to introduce e.g. <<<. For me I would make left shift maintain the signedness of the left-hand, generating a warning if the type couldn't be determined. That's closest to what Smalltalk does.
=============== Diff against VMMaker.oscog-eem.1971 ===============
Item was changed: ----- Method: SimpleStackBasedCogit>>genExtPushIntegerBytecode (in category 'bytecode generators') ----- genExtPushIntegerBytecode "NewsqueakV4: 229 11100101 iiiiiiii Push Integer #iiiiiiii (+ Extend B * 256, where bbbbbbbb = sddddddd, e.g. -32768 = i=0, a=0, s=1) SistaV1: 232 11101000 iiiiiiii Push Integer #iiiiiiii (+ Extend B * 256, where bbbbbbbb = sddddddd, e.g. -32768 = i=0, a=0, s=1)" | value |
value := byte1 + ((extB > 127 ifTrue: [extB - 256] ifFalse:[extB]) bitShift: 8).
value := byte1 + ((extB > 127 ifTrue: [extB - 256] ifFalse:[extB]) << 8). extB := 0. ^self genPushLiteral: (objectMemory integerObjectOf: value)!
Item was changed: ----- Method: SimpleStackBasedCogit>>genExtUnconditionalJump (in category 'bytecode generators') ----- genExtUnconditionalJump "242 11110010 i i i i i i i i Jump i i i i i i i i (+ Extend B * 256, where bbbbbbbb = sddddddd, e.g. -32768 = i=0, a=0, s=1)" | distance target |
distance := byte1 + ((extB > 127 ifTrue: [extB - 256] ifFalse:[extB]) bitShift: 8).
distance := byte1 + ((extB > 127 ifTrue: [extB - 256] ifFalse:[extB]) << 8). self assert: distance = (self v4: (self generatorAt: byte0) Long: bytecodePC Branch: (extA ~= 0 ifTrue: [1] ifFalse: [0]) + (extB ~= 0 ifTrue: [1] ifFalse: [0]) Distance: methodObj). extB := 0. target := distance + 2 + bytecodePC. distance < 0 ifTrue: [^self genJumpBackTo: target]. self genJumpTo: target. "The bytecode must be mapped since it can be either forward or backward, and backwards branches must be mapped. So if forward, we need to map." self annotateBytecode: self lastOpcode. ^0!
Item was changed: ----- Method: SimpleStackBasedCogit>>v4:Long:Branch:Distance: (in category 'span functions') ----- v4: descriptor Long: pc Branch: nExts Distance: aMethodObj "242 11110010 i i i i i i i i Jump i i i i i i i i (+ Extend B * 256, where bbbbbbbb = sddddddd, e.g. -32768 = i=0, a=0, s=1)" <var: #descriptor type: #'BytecodeDescriptor *'> | extBValue | self assert: nExts >= 0. self parseV4Exts: nExts priorTo: pc in: aMethodObj into: [:ea :eb| extBValue := eb]. ^(objectMemory fetchByte: pc + 1 ofObject: aMethodObj)
+ (extBValue bitShift: 8)!
+ (extBValue << 8)!Item was changed: ----- Method: StackInterpreter>>extPushIntegerBytecode (in category 'stack bytecodes') ----- extPushIntegerBytecode "229 11100101 i i i i i i i i Push Integer #iiiiiiii (+ Extend B * 256, where bbbbbbbb = sddddddd, e.g. -32768 = i=0, a=0, s=1)" | value |
value := self fetchByte + ((extB > 127 ifTrue: [extB - 256]ifFalse: [extB]) bitShift: 8).
value := self fetchByte + ((extB > 127 ifTrue: [extB - 256]ifFalse: [extB]) << 8). self fetchNextBytecode. extB := 0. self internalPush: (objectMemory integerObjectOf: value)!
Item was changed: ----- Method: StackInterpreter>>extUnconditionalJump (in category 'jump bytecodes') ----- extUnconditionalJump "242 11110010 i i i i i i i i Jump i i i i i i i i (+ Extend B * 256, where bbbbbbbb = sddddddd, e.g. -32768 = i=0, a=0, s=1)" | byte offset | byte := self fetchByte.
offset := byte + ((extB > 127 ifTrue: [extB - 256] ifFalse:[extB]) bitShift: 8).
offset := byte + ((extB > 127 ifTrue: [extB - 256] ifFalse:[extB]) << 8). extB := 0. localIP := localIP + offset. self ifBackwardsCheckForEvents: offset. self fetchNextBytecode!
2016-11-01 2:06 GMT+01:00 Eliot Miranda eliot.miranda@gmail.com:
Hi Nicolas,
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Nicolas Cellier < nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com> wrote:
2016-10-31 22:42 GMT+01:00 commits@source.squeak.org:
Eliot Miranda uploaded a new version of VMMaker to project VM Maker: http://source.squeak.org/VMMaker/VMMaker.oscog-eem.1972.mcz
==================== Summary ====================
Name: VMMaker.oscog-eem.1972 Author: eem Time: 31 October 2016, 2:42:12.362675 pm UUID: 0e6a54ad-d62f-4b69-9f0d-7b66f8350984 Ancestors: VMMaker.oscog-eem.1971
Redo fixing extB sign extension in NewsqueakV4 & SistaV1 extPushIntegerBytecode & extUnconditionalJump in interpreter and Cogit using bitShift: 8 instead of << 8. Slang seems to generate the correct code with bitAShift:, but not with <<.
Hi Eliot, it would have worked if you would have used bitOr: instead of + I'd say bitOr: better fits the intention: you want to assemble the bits, you do not really want to perform arithmetic here.
OK, but in 2's complement they do the same thing, so + sdeems just as good for me.
Not when we mix negative with positive obviously...
Also, the result we are after is a signed int, so consider that << is doing the right thing, it gives you a signed int.
That's not what Slang generated. It generated a cast to usqInt.
No, in fact << generates signed left shift. But it does so carefully, to make sure that C compiler do not detect UB (which can happen in case of sign overflow). That is, it first convert to usqInt, then shift, then convert the result back to sqInt. In this case, even the overflow is well defined, and we can write things like ( (somePositiveConstant << shiftVariable ) < 0 ) ifTrue: [...] without fear that the produced C code will be removed by compiler...
The expression you propose is unsigned. It works OK in this context, because we assign immediately to a signed int. But for a more general usage, it could deceive the inliner (for example if variable is automatically typed or eliminated...)
Well, we have signed right shifts, but no signed left shifts. What I really want is a signed left shift but chose not to introduce e.g. <<<. For me I would make left shift maintain the signedness of the left-hand, generating a warning if the type couldn't be determined. That's closest to what Smalltalk does.
again, << currently generates signed left shift.
That's why we need bitOr: rather than +
=============== Diff against VMMaker.oscog-eem.1971 ===============
Item was changed: ----- Method: SimpleStackBasedCogit>>genExtPushIntegerBytecode (in category 'bytecode generators') ----- genExtPushIntegerBytecode "NewsqueakV4: 229 11100101 iiiiiiii Push Integer #iiiiiiii (+ Extend B * 256, where bbbbbbbb = sddddddd, e.g. -32768 = i=0, a=0, s=1) SistaV1: 232 11101000 iiiiiiii Push Integer #iiiiiiii (+ Extend B * 256, where bbbbbbbb = sddddddd, e.g. -32768 = i=0, a=0, s=1)" | value |
value := byte1 + ((extB > 127 ifTrue: [extB - 256] ifFalse:[extB]) bitShift: 8).
value := byte1 + ((extB > 127 ifTrue: [extB - 256] ifFalse:[extB]) << 8). extB := 0. ^self genPushLiteral: (objectMemory integerObjectOf: value)!
Item was changed: ----- Method: SimpleStackBasedCogit>>genExtUnconditionalJump (in category 'bytecode generators') ----- genExtUnconditionalJump "242 11110010 i i i i i i i i Jump i i i i i i i i (+ Extend B * 256, where bbbbbbbb = sddddddd, e.g. -32768 = i=0, a=0, s=1)" | distance target |
distance := byte1 + ((extB > 127 ifTrue: [extB - 256] ifFalse:[extB]) bitShift: 8).
distance := byte1 + ((extB > 127 ifTrue: [extB - 256] ifFalse:[extB]) << 8). self assert: distance = (self v4: (self generatorAt: byte0) Long: bytecodePC Branch: (extA ~= 0 ifTrue: [1] ifFalse: [0]) + (extB ~= 0 ifTrue: [1] ifFalse: [0])
Distance: methodObj). extB := 0. target := distance + 2 + bytecodePC. distance < 0 ifTrue: [^self genJumpBackTo: target]. self genJumpTo: target. "The bytecode must be mapped since it can be either forward or backward, and backwards branches must be mapped. So if forward, we need to map." self annotateBytecode: self lastOpcode. ^0!
Item was changed: ----- Method: SimpleStackBasedCogit>>v4:Long:Branch:Distance: (in category 'span functions') ----- v4: descriptor Long: pc Branch: nExts Distance: aMethodObj "242 11110010 i i i i i i i i Jump i i i i i i i i (+ Extend B * 256, where bbbbbbbb = sddddddd, e.g. -32768 = i=0, a=0, s=1)" <var: #descriptor type: #'BytecodeDescriptor *'> | extBValue | self assert: nExts >= 0. self parseV4Exts: nExts priorTo: pc in: aMethodObj into: [:ea :eb| extBValue := eb]. ^(objectMemory fetchByte: pc + 1 ofObject: aMethodObj)
+ (extBValue bitShift: 8)!
+ (extBValue << 8)!Item was changed: ----- Method: StackInterpreter>>extPushIntegerBytecode (in category 'stack bytecodes') ----- extPushIntegerBytecode "229 11100101 i i i i i i i i Push Integer #iiiiiiii (+ Extend B * 256, where bbbbbbbb = sddddddd, e.g. -32768 = i=0, a=0, s=1)" | value |
value := self fetchByte + ((extB > 127 ifTrue: [extB - 256]ifFalse: [extB]) bitShift: 8).
value := self fetchByte + ((extB > 127 ifTrue: [extB - 256]ifFalse: [extB]) << 8). self fetchNextBytecode. extB := 0. self internalPush: (objectMemory integerObjectOf: value)!
Item was changed: ----- Method: StackInterpreter>>extUnconditionalJump (in category 'jump bytecodes') ----- extUnconditionalJump "242 11110010 i i i i i i i i Jump i i i i i i i i (+ Extend B * 256, where bbbbbbbb = sddddddd, e.g. -32768 = i=0, a=0, s=1)" | byte offset | byte := self fetchByte.
offset := byte + ((extB > 127 ifTrue: [extB - 256] ifFalse:[extB]) bitShift: 8).
offset := byte + ((extB > 127 ifTrue: [extB - 256] ifFalse:[extB]) << 8). extB := 0. localIP := localIP + offset. self ifBackwardsCheckForEvents: offset. self fetchNextBytecode!
-- _,,,^..^,,,_ best, Eliot
2016-11-01 3:10 GMT+01:00 Nicolas Cellier < nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com>:
2016-11-01 2:06 GMT+01:00 Eliot Miranda eliot.miranda@gmail.com:
Hi Nicolas,
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Nicolas Cellier < nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com> wrote:
2016-10-31 22:42 GMT+01:00 commits@source.squeak.org:
Eliot Miranda uploaded a new version of VMMaker to project VM Maker: http://source.squeak.org/VMMaker/VMMaker.oscog-eem.1972.mcz
==================== Summary ====================
Name: VMMaker.oscog-eem.1972 Author: eem Time: 31 October 2016, 2:42:12.362675 pm UUID: 0e6a54ad-d62f-4b69-9f0d-7b66f8350984 Ancestors: VMMaker.oscog-eem.1971
Redo fixing extB sign extension in NewsqueakV4 & SistaV1 extPushIntegerBytecode & extUnconditionalJump in interpreter and Cogit using bitShift: 8 instead of << 8. Slang seems to generate the correct code with bitAShift:, but not with <<.
Hi Eliot, it would have worked if you would have used bitOr: instead of + I'd say bitOr: better fits the intention: you want to assemble the bits, you do not really want to perform arithmetic here.
OK, but in 2's complement they do the same thing, so + sdeems just as good for me.
Not when we mix negative with positive obviously...
Ah, my bad, I see it now: you only change sign of first extB byte, then all successive extB remain positive. In this case yes, you can use + like bitOr:, you don't need my blessing obviously :)
vm-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Eliot Miranda -
Nicolas Cellier