So it is a new month. And the first of the month is April Fools, but I do not do jokes.


The next instruction to handle is ifnonnull.


I can use the work areas for comparison against constants. Well comparing to some constants is a pretty common operation. I will need equality checks.


Only thing is that there are multiple comparison types. Two for objects, 6 for integers, and 12 for floating point types. However, one set of comparisons uses the signed one or zero as the return value. dcmp, and fcmp. Then there if operations for each type. But all of the ifs just get turned into jumps somewhere else. They essentially just depend on the arguments. But I can reduce code for ifnull and ifnonnull by using a working constant with the null or not, then calling the standard object comparison between the two.


So far safety, just three classes for comparison. Since floating point uses two of them, that is what they get.


NaNs are not equal to each other.


I can probably move the software float code to the unsafe code.


Means the software math goes away.


If I am going to turn the float/double comparison to sign types then I do not need to have a result sign type.


I am going to have to unify comparisons and such. I know every byte code instruction that there is in the code of a method. So maybe I can read ahead for long, float, and double and see if a ifcmp follows. But that would mean handling the jump for potential differences in exceptions in jump targets. So I would have to complicate the decoder much to handle these cases. I could just cheat and drop the comparisons to software. Then the class decoder would need a new interface for a code description stream that supports hardware floating point and some other things.


Ok so the JIT I am writing now is not going to be very fast or efficient in long run. However I am going to disregard this completely and just have slow inefficient operations for some things, such as comparison between long, float, and double. When this JIT fully works and I have an actual working virtual machine which executes code, I will start work on an actual IL based one that can perform optimizations and is in general much easier to work with.


One thing that will be difficult is handling byte code instructions directly in the raw stream as I currently generate the codes. Basically what I need are cards that are created for each output instruction. Then I need a card manager where the cards can be inserted and removed based on the relation to other cards or directly. Then on the generation stage when machine code has to be generated, I can calculate the actual true positions of the cards and with their references to each other. Then this can be used to more safely generate the jump targets since with the method prolog and postlog. This would make it much easier to generate code and reduce the chances of screwing up implementing the JIT. Then for some instructions in MIPS, they require a PC relative offset to be known for jumps but with the raw byte array output it will be very difficult to implement, especially if instructions move. Since I do plan to replace the JIT with something more efficient in the future, the card generation system can just be reused and I will not really need to write it twice. It would also me to generate the internal instructions without needing to directly write the byte code or use some wrapping interface. Because for some operations I will need to write directly in assembly but I do not want to write an assembler when I can just use this card system to generate the raw machine code instructions.


So what I need to do create new package which has this card system for generating raw machine code instructions. Since the instructions are specific to the generated machine code and there are various instruction sets, the cards will just be holders for values similar to how I reimplemented the sorted tree map. So basically what I will do now is to setup these new projects which should make everything much easier.


Cards will be package private and will be unable to be directly manipulated on the deck like a List. The Deck will not be a List because that would it more difficult to use.


This means there can be constant and common faces. It also means that for some targets I can more easily generate mixed instruction types such as mini MIPS and some other things.


For the MIPS cards, I do not need to make a new project for the MIPS cards. But also the JIT is pretty much the only thing that will use the cards and for the internal implementation of methods the kernel builder will have access to the cards for this purpose. Then also potentially I can use the card output that exists in the JIT (the translation engine part) for the internal implementations because I will need to track registers, allocations, and other such things. So there would be an active cache state, which I could potentially modify things directly to perform some operations. For example when translating from a float to an int, I can just generate the cards to do those operations directly. And now generation of code is much easier to work with.


I can also take the hybrid approach to the class description stream in the JIT. I can still use the direct approach but I can handle some specific operations. Basically I believe I will need an exception that will be used if some operation is not supported so that it could be performed in software for example. Take for example 64-bit math, which is not supported on 32-bit systems. The translation engine code or pretty much also the class format code can have it where the operation is transformed. This means getting rid of some of my planned method overrides. But there would also be a route in the JIT to use those special SquirrelJME methods. I could have it where the class format code for as much as possible does not perform wrapped invokes. But that would simplify some operation handling and would allow me to directly inline some certain method calls. So basically keep doing it. For example if code calls Double.doubleToRawLongBits() instead of going the route of actually calling such a method that can be inlined and the call removed. Since only the JIT cares about things being pushed around and such. This means I would only need to handle these wrapping operations in a single location: the JIT. So I will do this for everything including those ugly long, float, and double comparisons. I can also treat the VM as a purely 32-bit machine too. Basically the class format code when it sees a long, float, or double it will translate those to a method call. But the JIT if it is targetting a 64-bit system it can translate those directly inlined machine code. However for 32-bit targets they will essentially be the method call.


The card system could also be used by the interpreter, but that would be a bit ugly probably.


Then this also means that the code fragment output stuff is gone. This means no more factory method just to create it.


This means that I can perform optimizations on the instruction level for some architectures.


Also the TranslationEngine has the direct register stuff. What could be done instead is to have a register dictionary instead. Then I can remove all of the register related stuff from the TranslationEngine. The only thing it would have is a get of the dictionary to use on initialization.


Also I was thinking of the method virtualization. For MethodLinkage I need a check target thing which can either check to a target or has a method for that. Because I will need a dictionary of the unsafe methods to check for potential tricks. Otherwise those trick fields will be all over the place and duplicated. Since the JIT handles method calls and the stack, the sub-JIT does not have to worry about any of that stuff. So that simplifies things greatly for me.


The next argument, saved, and temporary register could be commonized since right now it exists in the NUBI code. Since the sets have to be ordered. But I should definitely make it where the sets are ordered.


Ok, so I can commonize the GOT access and not require all this duplicated code to access such things. They can also be index too. The same thing can be done for the stack.


So tomorrow will be implementing the cards, simplifying some generation things, and getting machine code generated again. It should work out. So for generation, I am going to move as much stuff as possible into the base JIT, clean it up a bit, and do some other things. Handling of method invoke will need to change if I want to virtualize operations. Because right now in all cases it does the normal invocation logic. There potentially is a much cleaner way to do some of these things by moving it off to some other classes made specifically do handle these things.


Then if for GC I am going to do reference counting, I would need it where I must uncount objects before I get rid of them. That would have to been done on return, before objects are written to. And a few other things. However those reference counts can be virtualized for the most part. There would be a bunch of overhead from the reference counting though.


Just had this idea. The class decoder is very standalone. I made it seprate so that it could be reused for other things. I already decode much of the class format and it is quite complex. It would be annoying though, but I could merge it in with the JIT.


But, I could use the card system to handle the stream of byte code. Instead of having jump targets and exceptions everywhere, I can just load up all the byte code information into the card class I plan to use. Then each face on the card would be the byte code representation. So instead of a single linear pass, it would be capable of knowing the jump targets (which other cards the instructions jump to), their information, and other things. Basically I can load up the entire method to be parsed all at once. Then basically CodeDescriptionStream would go away and it would be more like a stream of face handling, depending on which face a card has. This could be translated to a register based machine like I already do.


For the class decoder, I essentially need all of it in order to function. The class format is complex and it does require much code to get things working properly. But the jump target and operation type code would essentially be erased because I would handle each instruction. The jump targets could just be lazily referenced later, which just points to other cards. So then this means that faces are perhaps abstract and instead can be bound to a card, but only a single card. That would be somewhat of a limitation though.