X-Git-Url: http://demsky.eecs.uci.edu/git/?a=blobdiff_plain;f=docs%2FStacker.html;h=bdd41bbfe59d10e45bdeb43de8c17bf959bdeedf;hb=700a3c97e90dfdad049f460d4547bff6e48dd7e7;hp=e8d68083981e7bd326eb2d928b5ecafd52c7bf03;hpb=832e2503e54340ba08d02d43005f0e226e8a0dab;p=oota-llvm.git diff --git a/docs/Stacker.html b/docs/Stacker.html index e8d68083981..bdd41bbfe59 100644 --- a/docs/Stacker.html +++ b/docs/Stacker.html @@ -1,12 +1,14 @@ - +
-Written by Reid Spencer
-+ + -
This document is another way to learn about LLVM. Unlike the LLVM Reference Manual or -LLVM Programmer's Manual, we learn +LLVM Programmer's Manual, here we learn about LLVM through the experience of creating a simple programming language named Stacker. Stacker was invented specifically as a demonstration of LLVM. The emphasis in this document is not on describing the -intricacies of LLVM itself, but on how to use it to build your own +intricacies of LLVM itself but on how to use it to build your own compiler system.
Amongst other things, LLVM is a platform for compiler writers. Because of its exceptionally clean and small IR (intermediate representation), compiler writing with LLVM is much easier than with -other system. As proof, the author of Stacker wrote the entire -compiler (language definition, lexer, parser, code generator, etc.) in -about four days! That's important to know because it shows -how quickly you can get a new -language up when using LLVM. Furthermore, this was the first +other system. As proof, I wrote the entire compiler (language definition, +lexer, parser, code generator, etc.) in about four days! +That's important to know because it shows how quickly you can get a new +language running when using LLVM. Furthermore, this was the first language the author ever created using LLVM. The learning curve is included in that four days.
The language described here, Stacker, is Forth-like. Programs -are simple collections of word definitions and the only thing definitions +are simple collections of word definitions, and the only thing definitions can do is manipulate a stack or generate I/O. Stacker is not a "real" -programming language; its very simple. Although it is computationally +programming language; it's very simple. Although it is computationally complete, you wouldn't use it for your next big project. However, -the fact that it is complete, its simple, and it doesn't have +the fact that it is complete, it's simple, and it doesn't have a C-like syntax make it useful for demonstration purposes. It shows that LLVM could be applied to a wide variety of languages.
The basic notions behind stacker is very simple. There's a stack of @@ -96,11 +94,11 @@ program in Stacker:
: MAIN hello_world ;This has two "definitions" (Stacker manipulates words, not
functions and words have definitions): MAIN
and
-hello_world
. The MAIN
definition is standard, it
+hello_world. The MAIN
definition is standard; it
tells Stacker where to start. Here, MAIN
is defined to
simply invoke the word hello_world
. The
hello_world
definition tells stacker to push the
-"Hello, World!"
string onto the stack, print it out
+"Hello, World!"
string on to the stack, print it out
(>s
), pop it off the stack (DROP
), and
finally print a carriage return (CR
). Although
hello_world
uses the stack, its net effect is null. Well
@@ -124,44 +122,43 @@ learned. Those lessons are described in the following subsections.
Although I knew that LLVM uses a Single Static Assignment (SSA) format, it wasn't obvious to me how prevalent this idea was in LLVM until I really started using it. Reading the -Programmer's Manual and Language Reference +Programmer's Manual and Language Reference, I noted that most of the important LLVM IR (Intermediate Representation) C++ classes were derived from the Value class. The full power of that simple design only became fully understood once I started constructing executable expressions for Stacker.
+This really makes your programming go faster. Think about compiling code
for the following C/C++ expression: (a|b)*((x+1)/(y+1))
. Assuming
the values are on the stack in the order a, b, x, y, this could be
expressed in stacker as: 1 + SWAP 1 + / ROT2 OR *
.
-You could write a function using LLVM that computes this expression like this:
+You could write a function using LLVM that computes this expression like
+this:
+
+
Value*
-expression(BasicBlock*bb, Value* a, Value* b, Value* x, Value* y )
+expression(BasicBlock* bb, Value* a, Value* b, Value* x, Value* y )
{
- Instruction* tail = bb->getTerminator();
- ConstantSInt* one = ConstantSInt::get( Type::IntTy, 1);
- BinaryOperator* or1 =
- BinaryOperator::create( Instruction::Or, a, b, "", tail );
- BinaryOperator* add1 =
- BinaryOperator::create( Instruction::Add, x, one, "", tail );
- BinaryOperator* add2 =
- BinaryOperator::create( Instruction::Add, y, one, "", tail );
- BinaryOperator* div1 =
- BinaryOperator::create( Instruction::Div, add1, add2, "", tail);
- BinaryOperator* mult1 =
- BinaryOperator::create( Instruction::Mul, or1, div1, "", tail );
-
+ ConstantSInt* one = ConstantSInt::get(Type::IntTy, 1);
+ BinaryOperator* or1 = BinaryOperator::createOr(a, b, "", bb);
+ BinaryOperator* add1 = BinaryOperator::createAdd(x, one, "", bb);
+ BinaryOperator* add2 = BinaryOperator::createAdd(y, one, "", bb);
+ BinaryOperator* div1 = BinaryOperator::createDiv(add1, add2, "", bb);
+ BinaryOperator* mult1 = BinaryOperator::createMul(or1, div1, "", bb);
return mult1;
}
-
-"Okay, big deal," you say. It is a big deal. Here's why. Note that I didn't
+
+
+"Okay, big deal," you say? It is a big deal. Here's why. Note that I didn't
have to tell this function which kinds of Values are being passed in. They could be
-Instruction
s, Constant
s, GlobalVariable
s,
-etc. Furthermore, if you specify Values that are incorrect for this sequence of
+Instruction
s, Constant
s, GlobalVariable
s, or
+any of the other subclasses of Value
that LLVM supports.
+Furthermore, if you specify Values that are incorrect for this sequence of
operations, LLVM will either notice right away (at compilation time) or the LLVM
-Verifier will pick up the inconsistency when the compiler runs. In no case will
-you make a type error that gets passed through to the generated program.
-This really helps you write a compiler that always generates correct code!
+Verifier will pick up the inconsistency when the compiler runs. In either case
+LLVM prevents you from making a type error that gets passed through to the
+generated program. This really helps you write a compiler that
+always generates correct code!
The second point is that we don't have to worry about branching, registers,
stack variables, saving partial results, etc. The instructions we create
are the values we use. Note that all that was created in the above
@@ -200,7 +197,7 @@ should be constructed. In general, here's what I learned:
- Create your blocks early. While writing your compiler, you
will encounter several situations where you know apriori that you will
- need several blocks. For example, if-then-else, switch, while and for
+ need several blocks. For example, if-then-else, switch, while, and for
statements in C/C++ all need multiple blocks for expression in LVVM.
The rule is, create them early.
- Terminate your blocks early. This just reduces the chances
@@ -221,11 +218,11 @@ should be constructed. In general, here's what I learned:
before. This makes for some very clean compiler design.
The foregoing is such an important principal, its worth making an idiom:
-
-BasicBlock* bb = new BasicBlock();
+
+BasicBlock* bb = new BasicBlock();
bb->getInstList().push_back( new Branch( ... ) );
new Instruction(..., bb->getTerminator() );
-
+
To make this clear, consider the typical if-then-else statement (see StackerCompiler::handle_if() method). We can set this up in a single function using LLVM in the following way:
@@ -235,44 +232,47 @@ BasicBlock* MyCompiler::handle_if( BasicBlock* bb, SetCondInst* condition ) { // Create the blocks to contain code in the structure of if/then/else - BasicBlock* then = new BasicBlock(); - BasicBlock* else = new BasicBlock(); - BasicBlock* exit = new BasicBlock(); + BasicBlock* then_bb = new BasicBlock(); + BasicBlock* else_bb = new BasicBlock(); + BasicBlock* exit_bb = new BasicBlock(); // Insert the branch instruction for the "if" - bb->getInstList().push_back( new BranchInst( then, else, condition ) ); + bb->getInstList().push_back( new BranchInst( then_bb, else_bb, condition ) ); // Set up the terminating instructions - then->getInstList().push_back( new BranchInst( exit ) ); - else->getInstList().push_back( new BranchInst( exit ) ); + then->getInstList().push_back( new BranchInst( exit_bb ) ); + else->getInstList().push_back( new BranchInst( exit_bb ) ); // Fill in the then part .. details excised for brevity - this->fill_in( then ); + this->fill_in( then_bb ); // Fill in the else part .. details excised for brevity - this->fill_in( else ); + this->fill_in( else_bb ); // Return a block to the caller that can be filled in with the code // that follows the if/then/else construct. - return exit; + return exit_bb; }Presumably in the foregoing, the calls to the "fill_in" method would add
the instructions for the "then" and "else" parts. They would use the third part
of the idiom almost exclusively (inserting new instructions before the
terminator). Furthermore, they could even recurse back to handle_if
-should they encounter another if/then/else statement and it will just work.
Note how cleanly this all works out. In particular, the push_back methods on
the BasicBlock
's instruction list. These are lists of type
-Instruction
which also happen to be Value
s. To create
+Instruction
(which is also of type Value
). To create
the "if" branch we merely instantiate a BranchInst
that takes as
-arguments the blocks to branch to and the condition to branch on. The blocks
-act like branch labels! This new BranchInst
terminates
-the BasicBlock
provided as an argument. To give the caller a way
-to keep inserting after calling handle_if
we create an "exit" block
-which is returned to the caller. Note that the "exit" block is used as the
-terminator for both the "then" and the "else" blocks. This guarantees that no
-matter what else "handle_if" or "fill_in" does, they end up at the "exit" block.
+arguments the blocks to branch to and the condition to branch on. The
+BasicBlock
objects act like branch labels! This new
+BranchInst
terminates the BasicBlock
provided
+as an argument. To give the caller a way to keep inserting after calling
+handle_if
, we create an exit_bb
block which is
+returned
+to the caller. Note that the exit_bb
block is used as the
+terminator for both the then_bb
and the else_bb
+blocks. This guarantees that no matter what else handle_if
+or fill_in
does, they end up at the exit_bb
block.
It took a little getting used to and several rounds of postings to the LLVM -mail list to wrap my head around this instruction correctly. Even though I had +mailing list to wrap my head around this instruction correctly. Even though I had read the Language Reference and Programmer's Manual a couple times each, I still missed a few very key points:
This means that when you look up an element in the global variable (assuming -its a struct or array), you must deference the pointer first! For many +it's a struct or array), you must deference the pointer first! For many things, this leads to the idiom:
-
-std::vector index_vector;
+
+std::vector<Value*> index_vector;
index_vector.push_back( ConstantSInt::get( Type::LongTy, 0 );
// ... push other indices ...
GetElementPtrInst* gep = new GetElementPtrInst( ptr, index_vector );
-
+
For example, suppose we have a global variable whose type is [24 x int]. The variable itself represents a pointer to that array. To subscript the array, we need two indices, not just one. The first index (0) dereferences the @@ -318,23 +319,23 @@ pointer. The second index subscripts the array. If you're a "C" programmer, this will run against your grain because you'll naturally think of the global array variable and the address of its first element as the same. That tripped me up for a while until I realized that they really do differ .. by type. -Remember that LLVM is a strongly typed language itself. Everything -has a type. The "type" of the global variable is [24 x int]*. That is, its +Remember that LLVM is strongly typed. Everything has a type. +The "type" of the global variable is [24 x int]*. That is, it's a pointer to an array of 24 ints. When you dereference that global variable with a single (0) index, you now have a "[24 x int]" type. Although the pointer value of the dereferenced global and the address of the zero'th element in the array will be the same, they differ in their type. The zero'th element has type "int" while the pointer value has type "[24 x int]".
-Get this one aspect of LLVM right in your head and you'll save yourself +
Get this one aspect of LLVM right in your head, and you'll save yourself a lot of compiler writing headaches down the road.
Linkage types in LLVM can be a little confusing, especially if your compiler -writing mind has affixed very hard concepts to particular words like "weak", +writing mind has affixed firm concepts to particular words like "weak", "external", "global", "linkonce", etc. LLVM does not use the precise -definitions of say ELF or GCC even though they share common terms. To be fair, +definitions of, say, ELF or GCC, even though they share common terms. To be fair, the concepts are related and similar but not precisely the same. This can lead you to think you know what a linkage type represents but in fact it is slightly different. I recommend you read the @@ -342,16 +343,19 @@ different. I recommend you read the carefully. Then, read it again.
Here are some handy tips that I discovered along the way:
Manipulating the stack can be quite hazardous. There is no distinction given and no checking for the various types of values that can be placed on the stack. Automatic coercion between types is performed. In many -cases this is useful. For example, a boolean value placed on the stack +cases, this is useful. For example, a boolean value placed on the stack can be interpreted as an integer with good results. However, using a word that interprets that boolean value as a pointer to a string to print out will almost always yield a crash. Stacker simply leaves it @@ -406,9 +410,9 @@ is terminated by a semi-colon.
So, your typical definition will have the form:
: name ... ;
The name
is up to you but it must start with a letter and contain
-only letters numbers and underscore. Names are case sensitive and must not be
+only letters, numbers, and underscore. Names are case sensitive and must not be
the same as the name of a built-in word. The ...
is replaced by
-the stack manipulting words that you wish define name
as.
+the stack manipulating words that you wish to define name
as.
@@ -423,18 +427,18 @@ the stack manipulting words that you wish define
name
as. # This is a comment to end of line ( This is an enclosed comment ) -
See the example program to see how this works in +
See the example program to see comments in use in a real program.
There are three kinds of literal values in Stacker. Integer, Strings, +
There are three kinds of literal values in Stacker: Integers, Strings,
and Booleans. In each case, the stack operation is to simply push the
- value onto the stack. So, for example:
+ value on to the stack. So, for example:
42 " is the answer." TRUE
- will push three values onto the stack: the integer 42, the
- string " is the answer." and the boolean TRUE.
Words in a definition come in two flavors: built-in and programmer defined. Simply mentioning the name of a previously defined or declared -programmer-defined word causes that word's definition to be invoked. It +programmer-defined word causes that word's stack actions to be invoked. It is somewhat like a function call in other languages. The built-in -words have various effects, described below.
+words have various effects, described below.Sometimes you need to call a word before it is defined. For this, you can
use the FORWARD
declaration. It looks like this:
FORWARD name ;
FORWARD
is an external symbol for
linking.
+
+TODO
+The built-in words of the Stacker language are put in several groups depending on what they do. The groups are as follows:
Definition Of Operation Of Built In Words | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LOGICAL OPERATIONS | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Word | Name | Operation | Description | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< | +
Definition Of Operation Of Built In Words | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
LOGICAL OPERATIONS | ||||
Word | +Name | +Operation | +Description | +|
< | LT | w1 w2 -- b | Two values (w1 and w2) are popped off the stack and @@ -554,15 +570,20 @@ using the following construction: | |
FALSE | FALSE | -- b | -The boolean value FALSE (0) is pushed onto the stack. | +The boolean value FALSE (0) is pushed on to the stack. |
TRUE | TRUE | -- b | -The boolean value TRUE (-1) is pushed onto the stack. | +The boolean value TRUE (-1) is pushed on to the stack. | +
BITWISE OPERATORS | ||||
Word | +Name | +Operation | +Description | |
BITWISE OPERATIONS | ||||
Word | Name | Operation | Description | |
<< | SHL | w1 w2 -- w1<<w2 | @@ -598,84 +619,94 @@ using the following construction: are bitwise exclusive OR'd together and pushed back on the stack. For example, The sequence 1 3 XOR yields 2.||
ARITHMETIC OPERATIONS | ||||
Word | Name | Operation | Description | |
ARITHMETIC OPERATORS | ||||
Word | +Name | +Operation | +Description | +|
ABS | ABS | w -- |w| | One value s popped off the stack; its absolute value is computed - and then pushed onto the stack. If w1 is -1 then w2 is 1. If w1 is + and then pushed on to the stack. If w1 is -1 then w2 is 1. If w1 is 1 then w2 is also 1. | |
NEG | NEG | w -- -w | One value is popped off the stack which is negated and then - pushed back onto the stack. If w1 is -1 then w2 is 1. If w1 is + pushed back on to the stack. If w1 is -1 then w2 is 1. If w1 is 1 then w2 is -1. | |
+ | ADD | w1 w2 -- w2+w1 | Two values are popped off the stack. Their sum is pushed back - onto the stack | + on to the stack|
- | SUB | w1 w2 -- w2-w1 | Two values are popped off the stack. Their difference is pushed back - onto the stack | + on to the stack|
* | MUL | w1 w2 -- w2*w1 | Two values are popped off the stack. Their product is pushed back - onto the stack | + on to the stack|
/ | DIV | w1 w2 -- w2/w1 | Two values are popped off the stack. Their quotient is pushed back - onto the stack | + on to the stack|
MOD | MOD | w1 w2 -- w2%w1 | Two values are popped off the stack. Their remainder after division - of w1 by w2 is pushed back onto the stack | + of w1 by w2 is pushed back on to the stack|
*/ | STAR_SLAH | w1 w2 w3 -- (w3*w2)/w1 | Three values are popped off the stack. The product of w1 and w2 is - divided by w3. The result is pushed back onto the stack. | + divided by w3. The result is pushed back on to the stack.|
++ | INCR | w -- w+1 | One value is popped off the stack. It is incremented by one and then - pushed back onto the stack. | + pushed back on to the stack.|
-- | DECR | w -- w-1 | One value is popped off the stack. It is decremented by one and then - pushed back onto the stack. | + pushed back on to the stack.|
MIN | MIN | w1 w2 -- (w2<w1?w2:w1) | Two values are popped off the stack. The larger one is pushed back - onto the stack. | + on to the stack.|
MAX | MAX | w1 w2 -- (w2>w1?w2:w1) | Two values are popped off the stack. The larger value is pushed back - onto the stack. | + on to the stack. +|
STACK MANIPULATION OPERATORS | ||||
Word | +Name | +Operation | +Description | |
STACK MANIPULATION OPERATIONS | ||||
Word | Name | Operation | Description | |
DROP | DROP | w -- | @@ -703,7 +734,7 @@ using the following construction:||
DUP | DUP | w1 -- w1 w1 | -One value is popped off the stack. That value is then pushed onto + | One value is popped off the stack. That value is then pushed on to the stack twice to duplicate the top stack vaue. |
DUP2 | @@ -717,7 +748,7 @@ using the following construction:SWAP | w1 w2 -- w2 w1 | The top two stack items are reversed in their order. That is, two - values are popped off the stack and pushed back onto the stack in + values are popped off the stack and pushed back on to the stack in the opposite order they were popped. | |
SWAP2 | @@ -725,27 +756,27 @@ using the following construction:w1 w2 w3 w4 -- w3 w4 w2 w1 | The top four stack items are swapped in pairs. That is, two values are popped and retained. Then, two more values are popped and retained. - The values are pushed back onto the stack in the reverse order but - in pairs. + The values are pushed back on to the stack in the reverse order but + in pairs. | ||
OVER | OVER | w1 w2-- w1 w2 w1 | Two values are popped from the stack. They are pushed back - onto the stack in the order w1 w2 w1. This seems to cause the + on to the stack in the order w1 w2 w1. This seems to cause the top stack element to be duplicated "over" the next value. | |
OVER2 | OVER2 | w1 w2 w3 w4 -- w1 w2 w3 w4 w1 w2 | -The third and fourth values on the stack are replicated onto the + | The third and fourth values on the stack are replicated on to the top of the stack |
ROT | ROT | w1 w2 w3 -- w2 w3 w1 | The top three values are rotated. That is, three value are popped - off the stack. They are pushed back onto the stack in the order + off the stack. They are pushed back on to the stack in the order w1 w3 w2. | |
ROT2 | @@ -756,7 +787,7 @@ using the following construction:||||
RROT | RROT | -w1 w2 w3 -- w2 w3 w1 | +w1 w2 w3 -- w3 w1 w2 | Reverse rotation. Like ROT, but it rotates the other way around. Essentially, the third element on the stack is moved to the top of the stack. | @@ -814,15 +845,20 @@ using the following construction: how much to rotate. That is, ROLL with n=1 is the same as ROT and ROLL with n=2 is the same as ROT2.
MEMORY OPERATIONS | ||||
Word | Name | Operation | Description | |
MEMORY OPERATORS | ||||
Word | +Name | +Operation | +Description | +|
MALLOC | MALLOC | w1 -- p | One value is popped off the stack. The value is used as the size of a memory block to allocate. The size is in bytes, not words. The memory allocation is completed and the address of the memory - block is pushed onto the stack. | + block is pushed on to the stack.|
FREE | FREE | @@ -862,8 +898,13 @@ using the following construction: pushed back on the stack so this doesn't count as a "use ptr" in the FREE idiom.|||
CONTROL FLOW OPERATIONS | ||||
Word | Name | Operation | Description | |
CONTROL FLOW OPERATORS | ||||
Word | +Name | +Operation | +Description | +|
RETURN | RETURN | -- | @@ -905,27 +946,36 @@ using the following construction: executed. In either case, after the (words....) have executed, execution continues immediately following the ENDIF.||
WHILE (words...) END | -WHILE (words...) END | +|||
WHILE word END | +WHILE word END | b -- b | -The boolean value on the top of the stack is examined. If it is non-zero then the
- "words..." between WHILE and END are executed. Execution then begins again at the WHILE where another
- boolean is popped off the stack. To prevent this operation from eating up the entire
- stack, you should push onto the stack (just before the END) a boolean value that indicates
- whether to terminate. Note that since booleans and integers can be coerced you can
- use the following "for loop" idiom: - (push count) WHILE (words...) -- END + | The boolean value on the top of the stack is examined (not popped). If
+ it is non-zero then the "word" between WHILE and END is executed.
+ Execution then begins again at the WHILE where the boolean on the top of
+ the stack is examined again. The stack is not modified by the WHILE...END
+ loop, only examined. It is imperative that the "word" in the body of the
+ loop ensure that the top of the stack contains the next boolean to examine
+ when it completes. Note that since booleans and integers can be coerced
+ you can use the following "for loop" idiom: + (push count) WHILE word -- END For example: - 10 WHILE DUP >d -- END - This will print the numbers from 10 down to 1. 10 is pushed on the stack. Since that is - non-zero, the while loop is entered. The top of the stack (10) is duplicated and then - printed out with >d. The top of the stack is decremented, yielding 9 and control is - transfered back to the WHILE keyword. The process starts all over again and repeats until - the top of stack is decremented to 0 at which the WHILE test fails and control is - transfered to the word after the END. |
-
INPUT & OUTPUT OPERATIONS | ||||
Word | Name | Operation | Description | |
INPUT & OUTPUT OPERATORS | ||||
Word | +Name | +Operation | +Description | +|
SPACE | SPACE | -- | @@ -949,30 +999,32 @@ using the following construction:||
>d | OUT_STR | -- | -A value is popped from the stack. It is put out as a decimal integer. | +A value is popped from the stack. It is put out as a decimal + integer. |
>c | OUT_CHR | -- | -A value is popped from the stack. It is put out as an ASCII character. | +A value is popped from the stack. It is put out as an ASCII + character. |
<s | IN_STR | -- s | -A string is read from the input via the scanf(3) format string " %as". The - resulting string is pushed onto the stack. | +A string is read from the input via the scanf(3) format string " %as". + The resulting string is pushed on to the stack. |
<d | IN_STR | -- w | -An integer is read from the input via the scanf(3) format string " %d". The - resulting value is pushed onto the stack | +An integer is read from the input via the scanf(3) format string " %d". + The resulting value is pushed on to the stack |
<c | IN_CHR | -- w | -A single character is read from the input via the scanf(3) format string - " %c". The value is converted to an integer and pushed onto the stack. | +A single character is read from the input via the scanf(3) format string + " %c". The value is converted to an integer and pushed on to the stack. |
DUMP | DUMP | @@ -982,16 +1034,17 @@ using the following construction: to see instantly the net effect of the definition.
The following fully documented program highlights many features of both the Stacker language and what is possible with LLVM. The program has two modes -of operations. If you provide numeric arguments to the program, it checks to see -if those arguments are prime numbers, prints out the results. Without any -aruments, the program prints out any prime numbers it finds between 1 and one -million (there's a log of them!). The source code comments below tell the +of operation. If you provide numeric arguments to the program, it checks to see +if those arguments are prime numbers and prints out the results. Without any +arguments, the program prints out any prime numbers it finds between 1 and one +million (there's a lot of them!). The source code comments below tell the remainder of the story.
Under the "projects" directory there is a directory named "stacker". That +
Under the "projects" directory there is a directory named "Stacker". That directory contains everything, as follows:
See projects/Stacker/lib/compiler/Lexer.l
-See projects/Stacker/lib/compiler/StackerParser.y
-See projects/Stacker/lib/compiler/StackerCompiler.cpp
-See projects/Stacker/lib/runtime/stacker_rt.c
-See projects/Stacker/tools/stkrc/stkrc.cpp
-See projects/Stacker/test/*.st
-ROLL
case in the
-StackerCompiler::handle_word(int)
method. See the implementations
-of PICk and SELECT in the same method to get some hints about how to complete
-this exercise.
+StackerCompiler::handle_word(int)
method.
Good luck!
The initial implementation of Stacker has several deficiencies. If you're interested, here are some things that could be implemented better: