I have an idea to start a new virtual machine which I call FlowerCoat. it will basically be an optimization of SpringCoat. Pretty much the same pure interpreter but will allow me to evolve it in a way which fits better with SummerCoat. Then I can back-port those to SpringCoat. Testing things in SpringCoat is too slow and SummerCoat although it has a compiler needs a bunch of supporting VM code and such.


Actually I think I will take what I have in SummerCoat right now and take it a step back. The NNCC is very immediate but it is missing a bunch of information such as debugging, the original instruction, any generalized parameters of it and such. I know the compiler should technically work but it is of course complicated. I think I need to take a step from VLIW and instead encode lots more information into the native code areas. I can use this as the basis for FlowerCoat. I know I am effectively rewriting the compiler but the byte code processor is completely standalone for the most part. Basically I really need to chunk individual Java instructions into a format where each one is handled individually. Basically at this point there would be a major Java block for some code but then individual sub-blocks which represent translation units of sorts. I think this way I could truly make it more optimizing so to speak because there would be inputs and outputs as such. But yes, definitely NNCC is a step too far and too quickly because I am having a hard time running it. So, the instruction layouts will effectively be:

At this point, there would be both HLCC and NNCC code in the instructions and the VM could use either of the two. Of course they be packaged in the same native code format since I already have that down. It would make for bigger ROM files though because more information would be stored. But I think this would be too much really, I think I really do need to make NNCC a bit more complicated if I want to target more systems.


But also thinking that I have NNCC, and it is a bit ugly. Form past experience I have performed some refactors and liked the result. So I think such a refactor would be in order and would be the best way to continue. So I need to figure out what I hate about it. Currently what I do not like is the pool access and such, like it uses direct integers and such. I really should make generic instructions for this to be easier to use. I do have a working iteration of the compiler, it just needs a refactor.