Re: [fonc] Parameterized Word Tagging: Any interest?
Hello Kjell, Saturday, August 23, 2008, 5:44:08 PM, you wrote: First of all, I'm learning about all that myself, so my answers might not be necessary correct (I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong). Okay I want to compile it on cygwin. Which version of fonc should I use? This one is a bit old, but is more likely to compile without problems: http://piumarta.com/software/cola/idst-20070918.tar.gz The latest version you can download using: svn co http://piumarta.com/svn2/idst/trunk idst you would need to install svn (either stand alone or through cygwin) What is Jolt? It's a function language with a scheme-like syntax. It's a bit like scripting language, since you don't compile it to an executable, though it compiles to machine code at run time. What is Coke? Here's what I'm confused, either it is a separate language, or it is another name for jolt. Though if it is a different language, then it's extremely similar to jolt: http://piumarta.com/software/cola/coke.html (pretty much everything described here work in jolt) What is Pepsi? Pepsi is object oriented prototype-based language, that resembles Smalltalk. Unlike Jolt, it is compiled into an executable. I think another name for it is also idst. http://piumarta.com/software/cola/pepsi.html Both of those links might not be completely up to date, but I think it should provide most of needed information (especially if you already know Scheme and Smalltalk) Cola is Lisp plus Smalltalk right? Actually COLA is Pepsi Coke/Jolt Plus a lot of weird stuff like variables that are macros and weird stuff like that. Is there a debugger I can use to step through its execution? As far as I know - no. If there is I'm really interested. Because those languages are late bound sometimes is very hard to debug them. With Pepsi, when you compile something, it doesn't mean it will run, and when the compiled program won't run it won't display you line code (perhaps that might be somehow solved by storing this information in executable?) Are there test cases? For Pepsi, there's object/st80/test-st80.st though it is more about testing the st80 library. There are also many examples. I don't know C so which compiler should I use? gcc? I think it will work best with gcc (it might not even work with other compilers at all) Could you point me to the mailing list where others have tried to do this? Or perhaps I could be the example here? As far as I know this is the only mailing list for Cola. As for example, if you install cygwin (compiling on linux might be less likely to fail though) you should install gcc, make and other dependencies, you can also install svn (subversion) when you're at it) Then go to the directory that you extracted and type: make That will take a while. Once you finish that, you don't have to install it, just go to one of examples and type make run to see how it works. Seems like most of the people here know gcc really really well. I don't. I only know Smalltalk, Scheme, Prolog Good news for you: Once you compile it (and if everything goes well, typing make should do everything) you won't really have to worry about C. Most C related stuff is only when you want to call libc functions from Pepsi or Jolt. I'm a C guy, and I actually never learned Smalltalk and Scheme, so learning about Jolt and Pepsi takes a lot of time for me. I think it should be way easier for you. although I did C in the 1980s. I don't think it changed that much since then ;) Though I doubt you'll need it much (most of the .c files are generated from the Pepsi source code) I hated Microsoft's C compiler so much that I swore I would never touch C again. But turbo C was good. If you help me then my example might help others too. I like to document. So this tendency might be useful to you. I don't think you should have problem with it, as long as you install everything you need in cygwin. If you'll still have problems I'll try my best to help. -- Best regards, Derekmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] CCNA, SCSA, SCNA, LPIC, MCP certified It's not bogus, it's an IBM standard ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Parameterized Word Tagging: Any interest?
Has anybody started on an (x86) 64-bit port of the code generator? I would like to collaborate if someone is working on this. I'd identified that as my next fonc-related task, but haven't really started on it, and may not get a chance to work on it in the next couple of weeks. But if you do pick this up before I get a chance to, I'd like to hear what you're doing. Regards, -Martin Does COLA fonc run on Windows? ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Parameterized Word Tagging: Any interest?
Okay I want to compile it on cygwin. Which version of fonc should I use? What is Jolt? What is Coke? What is Pepsi? Cola is Lisp plus Smalltalk right? Plus a lot of weird stuff like variables that are macros and weird stuff like that. Is there a debugger I can use to step through its execution? Are there test cases? I don't know C so which compiler should I use? gcc? Could you point me to the mailing list where others have tried to do this? Or perhaps I could be the example here? Seems like most of the people here know gcc really really well. I don't. I only know Smalltalk, Scheme, Prolog, although I did C in the 1980s. I hated Microsoft's C compiler so much that I swore I would never touch C again. But turbo C was good. If you help me then my example might help others too. I like to document. So this tendency might be useful to you. On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 10:18 AM, Derek Kuliński [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Kjell, Saturday, August 23, 2008, 2:09:01 AM, you wrote: Does COLA fonc run on Windows? You should be able to compile it on cygwin (http://www.cygwin.com/). -- Best regards, Derekmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] CCNA, SCSA, SCNA, LPIC, MCP certified -- Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (T)hrowup ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Parameterized Word Tagging: Any interest?
Currently, libid and idc only support 1 tag: fixnum or allocated object. All fixnums in idc and above require masking and shifting before operations. A fixnum operation heavy program, for example, would benefit from using 00 tags, as in SBCL, unless tags can be optimized away by type inference or declaration. The idea to parameterize the tagging, to avoid hard-wired low-level decisions about tag schemes by opening it up to higher levels of abstraction, Jolt for example. Hard-coded decisions about tagging and word size created problems when porting it to 64 bits. Yes, it will useful to have this before porting to new architectures. Has anybody started on an (x86) 64-bit port of the code generator? I would like to collaborate if someone is working on this. In general I agree with Adrian Kuhn (who commented on your blog post) that the benefits of one tagging scheme versus another are doubtful. In the context of idc or my language implementation, there are many avenues for optimization open for exploration which will likely yield more benefit. John Adrian correctly pointed out that tagging is a time/space trade-off. I did demonstrate that different processors did perform differently by varying tagging schemes. Yes, the current tagging scheme (with 0 as nil) seemed to perform best in your benchmark. But will it make a difference for more typical usage (such as idc compiling itself)? There is an interest in porting FoNC to smaller and larger architectures. If tagging schemes have limited benefit then why decide on any tagging scheme? There are valid reasons modern systems do not use high-bit tags; I propose there are valid reasons to not hard-code a particular tagging scheme into a flexible system like FoNC. Sure John ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Parameterized Word Tagging: Any interest?
Adrian correctly pointed out that tagging is a time/space trade-off. I did demonstrate that different processors did perform differently by varying tagging schemes. Yes, the current tagging scheme (with 0 as nil) seemed to perform best in your benchmark. But will it make a difference for more typical usage (such as idc compiling itself)? There is an interest in porting FoNC to smaller and larger architectures. If tagging schemes have limited benefit then why decide on any tagging scheme? There are valid reasons modern systems do not use high-bit tags; I propose there are valid reasons to not hard-code a particular tagging scheme into a flexible system like FoNC. I'm new to this list, so pardon me if this is off-topic. I'm working on a prototype micro-kernel (in C) that currently runs on x86 but is ultimately targeted to run on an ARM processor as well. On the ARM, it is possible to include a shift into any data access opcode without incurring additional execution cycles. This creates a different set of interesting trade-offs WRT performant type tagging. I've experimented with a couple of different tagging schemes, some intended to leave bits available for marking by the garbage collector. I've isolated all the tagging policies into a small set of macros. This allowed me to switch from using 3-MSB to 2-LSB without changing anything except the macro definitions. The meta-question I have is: Is this an appropriate place to discuss micro-kernel design issues in general, or is it VPRI/COLA specific? It seems to me that we have a lot in common. I have certainly enjoyed learning from your published experiences. ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Parameterized Word Tagging: Any interest?
If this was implemented in higher-levels of abstraction we could introduce different tagging schemes to support locatives, flonums, etc. This could lead to more language features, reduced memory usage and garbage on smaller hardware and better performance on 64-bit machines that don't need the lower 3 bits of the machine word for object addresses due to alignment. Hardcoded 1-bit tags doesn't give much room for future ideas or any other immediates. I could continue the work into libid, but I haven't looked much at Jolt yet; I'm not sure where to start. Preliminary results as applied to libid here: http://kurtstephens.com/node/60 32-bit machines also don't need the lower 3 bits if you align all objects by 8 bytes. In my Church-State implementation I adopted some of the conventions used by the SBCL lisp implementation, see the tags here http://subvert-the-dominant-paradigm.net/repos/hgwebdir.cgi/bootstrap/file/3ec558141ebc/church/runtime/church_types.state and the sbcl page describing the tags: http://sbcl-internals.cliki.net/tag%20bit The main rationale is that fixnums can be added without shifting (and can be used to index word arrays without shifting). In general I agree with Adrian Kuhn (who commented on your blog post) that the benefits of one tagging scheme versus another are doubtful. In the context of idc or my language implementation, there are many avenues for optimization open for exploration which will likely yield more benefit. John ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Parameterized Word Tagging: Any interest?
If this was implemented in higher-levels of abstraction we could introduce different tagging schemes to support locatives, flonums, etc. This could lead to more language features, reduced memory usage and garbage on smaller hardware and better performance on 64-bit machines that don't need the lower 3 bits of the machine word for object addresses due to alignment. Hardcoded 1-bit tags doesn't give much room for future ideas or any other immediates. I could continue the work into libid, but I haven't looked much at Jolt yet; I'm not sure where to start. Preliminary results as applied to libid here: http://kurtstephens.com/node/60 32-bit machines also don't need the lower 3 bits if you align all objects by 8 bytes. Mozilla's SpiderMonkey Javascript implementation used in Firefox and other Mozilla environments uses 3 bit tags as follows :- 000 - untagged reference to an Object 001 - a 31 bit int 010 - tagged reference to a Double 100 - tagged reference to a String 110 - tagged Boolean There is more room within the boolean's space to have thurther encoded types. The only issues are extra coing and uncoding code, which could be implicitly generated in generated code and speed issues. If its usage could be virtual and transparent in generated code (ie there or not there on a generation flag) and maybe also modifiable in instances then we would have the best of all worlds. Aaron ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
[fonc] Parameterized Word Tagging: Any interest?
Is anybody interested in adding parameterized word tagging in libid, idc and up through Jolt? If this was implemented in higher-levels of abstraction we could introduce different tagging schemes to support locatives, flonums, etc. This could lead to more language features, reduced memory usage and garbage on smaller hardware and better performance on 64-bit machines that don't need the lower 3 bits of the machine word for object addresses due to alignment. Hardcoded 1-bit tags doesn't give much room for future ideas or any other immediates. I could continue the work into libid, but I haven't looked much at Jolt yet; I'm not sure where to start. Preliminary results as applied to libid here: http://kurtstephens.com/node/60 Kurt Stephens ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
