Ok so, decompressing unknown sized data looking for the descriptor I get this:

DEBUG -- S:[c74e8309, 1890, 1890] ?= D:[b2a9c247, 1906, 1906]

Which is a bit close, although off by 16.


Also ByteDeque has a bug or the dynamic history input stream has a bug:



Actually I was using it wrong.


And the code I wrote works! First try it seems too.


I copied and pasted the expected values but those are not valid for udnefined entries.


I definitely am not currently sleeping right now.


Ok so the ABIManager and the RegisterProvider that I have planned are not going to work at all. Maybe I am looking at it the wrong way. What if I made the ABI management in-line. What if I make the registers meaningless? Basically I add a pipe between the machine code output which is more native but a bit higher abstracted which can handle registers and things such as the calling convention. So the pipes would be as such:

ABIs are very specific to a system and having for the most part a common abstracted ABI setup would be pretty messy for the most part. Every operating system has different ABIs and a general approach to how things are done. Basically this is nearly an impossible possible problem to generalize correctly. The one advantage the machine code output will have is being able to output machine code without needing to worry about an ABI or anything like that.


So when it comes to registers which are available for usage, there needs to be a way to keep track of so called storage units. Basically, I want to keep track and potentially stack cache or move arguments around in the code which handles the expanded byte code potentially. But like the machine code output the ABI pipe will be very general and will not optimize, that will be up to the expanded byte code output. But the ABI would provide storage units that the expanded pipe can use to do whatever it wants with it. These storage units would be rather stateless with no type information other than their native primitive type (integer or float) registers.


So the main thing is that I can commonize and abstract the ABI stuff another way by not having an abstract model but a rather implicit model. The ABI pipe could still be an abstract class. Since most systems will have a very similar ABI for the same architecture they could extend from base classes and modify the behavior slightly as needed. There would need to be providers also, but that is rather simple.


One major thing would be to make storage units simple.

On a quick note though, ABIs could technically be mixed across architectures but that would be rather undefined. I would prefix ABIs by the architecture it belongs in so that they do not get mixed up. Then there would need to be some extra options according to the ABI since they could be configured slightly different for each target.


So the ABI pipe will be more native but will take an even less managed output from the expanded. It will essentially just act as input and output to the machine code output. At least with machine code output being rather fixed it will be shared between ABIs. The main thing to think about are storage units. Basically I need to have something similar to what I have before but only primitive types. The ABI would have to have a means of managing the storage units which are used to used as a reference to allocated variables and such.


I would say that a simple stack could be used for storage units to make things a bit easier.


Ok so my current storage unit idea is giving me just a nasty feeling of it is not going to work. So the ABI split is in the right direction but the best way to manage variables? That idea as a way to manage variables has been done before. There is the pipe splitting but it actually moves the problem sideways to it is on the side rather than being top-down in the machine code output and the expanded pipe.


I should definitely be sleeping however. I could probably think of something in the morning related to storage units. But a sideways ABI move is good. I just need to solve how variables and stack things are handled. Maybe the expanded byte code just does not really care what happens. It can do some optimizations and register caching. But really the ABI just knows of some register state where things need to be loaded and stored.


Closed my eyes to sleep and the image of dancing registers appeared to me. Basically storage units map to registers and they can be shuffled by the ABI pipe. They would be actively moved and used like a timeline thread through the operations being performed.


Ok so I had the idea of what if the ABI pipe hide the ABI related stuff from the expanded byte code stuff potentially. There would still be the storage units and such.


You know really when it comes to the ABI pipe it can expose storage units but it does not have to actually manage anything by itself. Basically, the ABI will have active units and stored units. Active units are ones which exist in registers while stored ones are on the stack somewhere.


The "ABI" part of it probably needs a better name though, but it would exist on the arch side of the JIT. Also the simulator JIT parts can be combined into a single project, there really is no need to have two of them.


Ok so the Java byte code and expanded pipe are on the left side of the system and the "ABI" and MCO are on the right part of the system. The Expanded pipe removes all of the Java specific bits and just shows the "ABI" part.


So would you say the "ABI" would really be a Compiler? It takes whatever was output by the expanded code and then outputs the machine code, however it wants to actually work. I mean the only real difference between the expanded code and the machine code side is...


Thinking about it. The MCO is not part of the ABI and it should just assemble things and such. Basically the expanded byte code outputs an intermediate language, that is the purpose of it for the most part. I could design a class which just holds a bunch of instructions. I have tried this before but it does not really work out. But it is easier to optimize and such. Maybe get rid of the expanded pipe and just have the byte code expand to an intermediate representation. This would have to be rather CISCy, but it would do the same thing as the expanded byte code interface. Basically maybe what I really need is program transformation in steps. Turn the byte code into a higher intermediate language say hil. Then that higher intermediate program is transformed by something which turns it into lil. Remove the expanded pipe. At first an entire program is generated first. But generate it in a way where it does violate basic block requirements (no jumps in the middle of basic blocks), but that is very easily done. Exceptions can then get their hil generated. At least the thing I can worry about first is generating the hil first and then worry later about transforming that into lil. Basically the ABI part of what was before would transform to lil. Then lil is output directly to machine code. So that works out. Then the arch project and such becomes just asm. So the route is class -> hil -> lil -> asm.


Well really it is not class, it is java.


Then anything that was placed into lil should easily be translated to assembly code accordingly.


Looking at bin package, things could be made much simpler. Everything in SquirrelJME is a static executable for the most part. Really all there will be is a text and data section. Virtually every single system only uses single sections. One exception I know of being PalmOS, but that would only be an issue if the text or data sections exceed 32KiB. Makes me wonder if SquirrelJME could indeed fit into such a small space.


Really the output binary could be very simplified. Conditions are artifacts of the byte code interpreter and not of the native target, so they really do not belong in the binary at all. Clusters could be changed to just be single indexes for the class is in, similar to how it is before. Resources can just end up being an array of classes and resource names. Of course I need a string table for interning and such.


String interning could really just be byte arrays being returned. If a string is not in the intern table then the interning can just return a byte array representing the string data, although there would need to be a map too. So really the intern method turns into get of an index, then if the index is valid get the byte[] and char[] arrays. Internal strings would be duplicated but they would be cached. The only thing would string constants would need to return objects allocated for internal strings. Since code such as "boop" == new String("boop").intern() must be true. Would need to figure that out.


But regardless I can really refactor the binary setup. Then I just need a dump for conditions to validate things. As long as all the conditions meet the code is correct.


LinkerState is too complex to begin with anyway.