From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Register VM WIP Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 17:01:40 +0200 Message-ID: <87mx58i2zv.fsf@pobox.com> References: <871umqr8q0.fsf@pobox.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1337180534 22808 80.91.229.3 (16 May 2012 15:02:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 15:02:14 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel To: Stefan Israelsson Tampe Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed May 16 17:02:13 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SUfjt-0005hx-AO for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 16 May 2012 17:02:09 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:33720 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SUfjs-0004dZ-Pd for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 16 May 2012 11:02:08 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:36913) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SUfjh-0004cr-HD for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 16 May 2012 11:02:07 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SUfjW-0004xS-Eq for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 16 May 2012 11:01:57 -0400 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com ([74.115.168.62]:42345 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SUfjW-0004xK-5S for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 16 May 2012 11:01:46 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31A1C842F; Wed, 16 May 2012 11:01:44 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=2ekFXWrfJCF+ lmHO78DzaFUxy+k=; b=ZtrcUYWi+bTCIjbrzSMxK8Ztx7c0SMuZQ0iimst5msi3 L1DxKy8qjifWeauDxfrtWSMk00CnQgO+4pREjUwwYEQTTUbQcDV4CaXhsHPu4mPH x4RvLpfNlbJFID3uJQ7M0mBR3eh7dpKnzZbVqoENWgpkgWG2zDLLpzrZzNLlQkA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=S1bApv 27HFekCLC24/C+0mbdPsMZekPNxUuChBwRsD6KCEGjNwJw8rxr4CVUzw2hOC9Aeu wbFvvmj5K8xPceYzQ4CVWDXwdJbBDEKsBKWv5cw09x85OwVKGsgaOAR4NCGPAsQG V3TVJe4irlI1o6MuGx0oKb60lgUzR1RJpI0H0= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2073C842E; Wed, 16 May 2012 11:01:44 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from badger (unknown [85.50.188.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2DE6A8429; Wed, 16 May 2012 11:01:43 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Stefan Israelsson Tampe's message of "Fri, 11 May 2012 22:29:11 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.4 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 0C866E5A-9F68-11E1-ADC0-E981AF15ED39-02397024!a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 74.115.168.62 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:14468 Archived-At: Hi Stefan, On Fri 11 May 2012 22:29, Stefan Israelsson Tampe = writes: > 1. What about growing stacks any coments if they will be easier to manage > for this setup. Can one copy the C stack logic? Having a fixed-size frame means that it's easier to have disjoint stacks, since a register VM addresses operands relative to the frame pointer and not the stack pointer. I hope to be able to decrease our default stack size, and allow it instead to grow dynamically. > 2. Is there an instruction that does what call does but can be used for t= ail call's > when it needs it e.g. the code > =C2=A0for (n =3D 0; n < nargs; n++) > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 LOCAL_SET (n, old_fp[ip[4 + n]= ]); > that is missing for the tail code This is another advantage of wip-rtl. In it, the compiler is responsible for shuffling tail arguments. It can do a parallel move possibly without shuffling args to the top of the stack. Then tail-call just sets a new procedure and jumps to its entry. > 3. I would appriciate if the frame is always below say 256 SCM:s of the f= p stack limit > that way when preparing tail calling one doesn't usally need to check if = the argument fit's > when issuing a tail call. See above :) > 4. I think the logic code hook I recently investigated could easily fit i= nto this VM engine with > using similar techniques as I described in previous mails. I'm still working back through the mails; remind me again if it seems I overlooked this mail. Cheers, Andy --=20 http://wingolog.org/