Register Machine

Calling the virtual machine a register machine might inspire visions of gnarly modern CPUs with complex machinations. In practice, registers are used to stash useful state.

More important is the stack. This is used to store temporary values as we evaluate expressions in forms, ultimately to make function calls.

Manipulating the stack becomes like an industrialised form of Towers of Hanoi so you might want to get your game face on.

Opcodes

The compiled program, the byte code, is going to be a big long list of opcodes and their arguments. What do these look like?

Just before we get there, we’re nominally a byte code virtual machine, meaning that we really would like everything to by managed in terms of bytes. Which doesn’t happen for most opcode arguments (as opposed to Idio arguments) but we’ll deal with that.

An opcode describes an operation, often implying the use of one or more registers, usually in a very simplistic way:

  • push the value in the val register onto the stack

  • pop the top-most value on the stack into the func register

  • put the value of constant #n in the val register

    This n is an opcode argument where we sped up the run-time by only encoding an integer in the byte code instead of the constant itself. We subsequently have to access the constant from an array.

You can get and set top-level variables (between the val register and an array of values), call functions (which leave a value in the val register) and so on.

The byte-nature breaks down if we pass an opcode argument bigger than 255. That’s pretty common as we pass constant and value table indices around all the time. I’ve followed in the path of SQLite and used its variable length unsigned integer encoding algorithm.

That algorithm means one byte can encode up to 240, two bytes up to 2287 and three bytes can encode up to 67823 and thereafter the encoding is one byte worse than a regular encoding: four bytes represent up to 224-1, five bytes up to 232-1 and so on up to nine bytes for 264-1.

That’s hardly brilliant for small values but, crucially, it is generic. We don’t need extra opcodes identifying the kind of integer encoded next (“small”, “medium” and “large”). We also don’t always use eight bytes to encode single digit integers.

*

What we really want is a small-number friendly system – I’ll confess I stopped thinking too hard when I found something that was generic.

You might ask how big the integers get that we need to encode? Well, startup uses a couple of thousand constants (on the cusp of tripping into the three byte encoding!) and the test suite uses about 18,000 constants. That seems like quite a lot but, maybe, not so much for a large program.

Jumps in the byte code (GOTOs) number around 2800 in the test suite with around 350 “long GOTOs” (over 240 bytes) with the largest a nearly 6000 byte jump.

I want to avoid the use of a fixed width system, it feels wrong and artificially constraining let alone mostly inefficient. Who wants to discover that you’re limited to 65536 constants or values in your program? Four billion sounds plenty but is it? Well, for one thing it is the limit on a 32-bit machine. Is it a reasonable limit on a 64-bit machine? (Yes, probably, though there’ll always be that guy. Don’t be that guy!)

It still feels wrong to be encoding integers in the low tens of thousands (and the low thousands for most uses) in four bytes. We’ve no control over the byte alignment in the byte code stream so it’s not as if there’s any easy way to reconstruct the original 32 bits, you have to read a byte, shift, read a byte, shift and so on.

Of note, here, is that Idio integers, 123, are not encoded in the byte code. They are (and should be!) regarded as constants in the Idio program and treated in the same way as a string, "hello". That is, a slot is found for them in the constants array and all future references to them are made using indexes into that array.

I wonder if something along the lines of the UTF-8 encoding system might work? Ignoring the Unicode constraints, as a run-length encoding system it appears fairly open-ended, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-8#FSS-UTF.

bytes

first

last

acc. count

1

0x0

0x7f

128

2

0x80

0x7ff

2048

3

0x800

0xffff

65536

4

0x10000

0x1fffff

2097152

5

0x200000

0x3ffffff

67108864

6

0x4000000

0x7fffffff

2147483648

Answer: Yes but it is worse than the SQLite scheme.

*

There is a downside in that the varuint system only encodes unsigned numbers. So we do need a “negative number” opcode whose job is to read the upcoming positive number and, uh, negate it.

Nominally, we can have up to 256 opcodes – I’ve define 150-odd so far, several of which aren’t used. Go figure.

These are defined in src/vm.h and look like a rather tedious set of variations on a theme, here’s a sample:

vm.h
#define IDIO_A_SHALLOW_ARGUMENT_REF0         1
#define IDIO_A_SHALLOW_ARGUMENT_REF1         2
#define IDIO_A_SHALLOW_ARGUMENT_REF2         3
#define IDIO_A_SHALLOW_ARGUMENT_REF3         4
#define IDIO_A_SHALLOW_ARGUMENT_REF          5
#define IDIO_A_DEEP_ARGUMENT_REF             6

#define IDIO_A_SHALLOW_ARGUMENT_SET0         10
#define IDIO_A_SHALLOW_ARGUMENT_SET1         11
#define IDIO_A_SHALLOW_ARGUMENT_SET2         12
#define IDIO_A_SHALLOW_ARGUMENT_SET3         13
#define IDIO_A_SHALLOW_ARGUMENT_SET          14
#define IDIO_A_DEEP_ARGUMENT_SET             15

#define IDIO_A_GLOBAL_SYM_REF                20
#define IDIO_A_CHECKED_GLOBAL_SYM_REF        21
...

which they are.

They are implemented in idio_vm_run1() in src/vm.c which is an enormous switch statement where, having read in the byte code opcode as ins we can:

idio_vm_run1() in src/vm.c
switch (ins) {
case IDIO_A_SHALLOW_ARGUMENT_REF0:
    IDIO_VM_RUN_DIS ("SHALLOW-ARGUMENT-REF 0");
    IDIO_THREAD_VAL (thr) = IDIO_FRAME_ARGS (IDIO_THREAD_FRAME (thr), 0);
    break;
case IDIO_A_SHALLOW_ARGUMENT_REF1:
    ...
}

where we can optionally drop out some running debug with IDIO_VM_RUN_DIS() (DIS for disassemble) – although I don’t recommend doing so as you’ll get “quite a lot” of output – before updating the val register with the value in the 0th slot in the current argument frame.

(Yes, there are quite a lot of C helper macros involved!)

Note that the opcode is likely to be referred to with a more Idio friendly name, SHALLOW-ARGUMENT-REF0.

Some opcodes are more involved than others although the general idea of resolving everything down to simple opcodes is that they don’t individually do much.

Dedicated Opcodes

The evaluator will determine a general sort of functional request, ARGUMENT-REF i j, say, to access the jth argument in the ith frame back.

In fact, even the evaluator, here, will differentiate between a SHALLOW-ARGUMENT-REF j (for a zero i) and a DEEP-ARGUMENT-REF i j (for a non-zero i).

The code generator is in cahoots with the VM (not really ideal as the information about what is possible is in two places) and can decide to use some specialised opcodes for specific tasks. We could do some analysis (I suppose I ought to!) from which we might discern that some things happen more often than others and could do with being specialised.

A specialised opcode means that the argument is implied by the opcode itself rather than being passed in the byte code (and having to be decoded).

IDIO_A_SHALLOW_ARGUMENT_REF0, above, is a good example of that. Most functions will access their first argument (not all, of course) and so we have a dedicated opcode for that rather than the generic SHALLOW-ARGUMENT-REF j with j being zero:

idio_vm_run1() in src/vm.c
case IDIO_A_SHALLOW_ARGUMENT_REF:
    {
        uint64_t j = idio_vm_fetch_varuint (thr);
        IDIO_VM_RUN_DIS ("SHALLOW-ARGUMENT-REF %" PRId64 "", j);
        IDIO_THREAD_VAL (thr) = IDIO_FRAME_ARGS (IDIO_THREAD_FRAME (thr), j);
    }
    break;

which has to decode a (variable length) integer argument from the byte code thus allowing it to access the (less often accessed) jth argument to the function.

Reading that “varuint” is relatively expensive, slowing the whole flow down, so if there’s any quick wins to be had by dedicating opcodes to specific tasks then we should consider taking them.

Just to get a feel for those numbers, the current test suite produces the following numbers (run a debug build with --vm-reports and look in ./vm-perf):

instruction

count

cnt%

time

time%

ns/cal

SHALLOW-ARGUMENT-REF0

969776

5.6

0.027938377

0.0

28

SHALLOW-ARGUMENT-REF1

397200

2.3

0.011514698

0.0

28

SHALLOW-ARGUMENT-REF2

92822

0.5

0.002792880

0.0

30

SHALLOW-ARGUMENT-REF3

97571

0.6

0.002966939

0.0

30

SHALLOW-ARGUMENT-REF

93391

0.5

0.004358618

0.0

46

DEEP-ARGUMENT-REF

546688

3.2

0.050494580

0.1

92

Here you can see that SHALLOW-ARGUMENT-REF0 accounts for 44% of all argument references. Given that on this machine it takes 28ns versus the 46ns of a generic SHALLOW-ARGUMENT-REF j call (let alone the 92ns for the generic DEEP-ARGUMENT-REF i j call) specializing the opcode is a sensible move. The cumulative 0.028s those almost-a-million instructions took could have been over three times longer.

OK, maybe we can ignore those as it’s a whole heap of nothing. Except the equivalent numbers of the “standard unit of computing”, the Raspberry Pi 3B+ are 181ns and 880ns respectively. Actually, that really hurts!

*

Another kind of dedicated opcode is for a specific (primitive) function call. We use pairs a lot so maybe pair? will give us a quick win if we avoid the rigmarole of creating an argument frame for it to be picked apart not long after to call the primitive function.

idio_vm_run1() in src/vm.c
case IDIO_A_PRIMCALL1_PAIRP:
    {
        IDIO_VM_RUN_DIS ("PRIMITIVE1 pair?");
        if (idio_isa_pair (IDIO_THREAD_VAL (thr))) {
            IDIO_THREAD_VAL (thr) = idio_S_true;
        } else {
            IDIO_THREAD_VAL (thr) = idio_S_false;
        }
    }
    break;

Boom! Go straight to the C function.

Obviously, in both cases, the code generator and VM need to be in sync as to the set of dedicated opcodes!

As it happens, I had and then removed these specific primitive function call opcodes and made all non-varargs primitive calls half-specialised (half-baked?) with PRIMCALLn opcodes for the number of arguments, n, they require. We only need encode the value index for the primitive (a varuint) in the byte code. The arguments are computed and left on the stack (as with all function calls), then we can pop the arguments off the stack (into handy registers) and call the primitive directly (which calls the C function in turn).

So, a couple of steps behind the curve but I think it’s OK.

I partly did this because in writing the Idio version of the evaluator, lib/evaluate.idio, I realised I was now putting the information about which opcodes were specialised in three places. That just compounds the problem.

Varargs primitives have to trundle through the whole function call experience where a frame is created, the arguments are popped off the stack into the frame, the generic function call mechanism is called where the (varargs) primitive has to dismember the frame to get hold of its arguments before calling the primitive directly.

Program Counter

So, the byte compiled program is a big long list of opcodes and their arguments and to help execute the program we need a program counter, aka. the “register” PC, to keep track of where we’re up to. It’s not really a register as it’s an index into a C byte array (and, unusually, not an IDIO value).

We don’t quite start at the beginning and run to the end. Partly as we’ve not actually defined an end. When we drop off the byte code array, I guess, but that sounds a little… uncontrolled.

We don’t even have the luxury of a start, per se, as we’re constantly in “read a bit, compile and run a bit, read a bit, compile and run a bit” mode.

Stopping

We need to think about stopping, first, as it’s a little bit more complicated than just “falling off the end of the array.”

What we really want is a controlled exit from the chunk of code we’re about to run. An obvious way to do that is have an opcode dedicated to stopping, when we hit that we’re OK to “return” to what ever we were doing before we started running this bit of code. Probably to read a bit more source code.

So, let’s have a FINISH opcode.

OK, where do we put it? We could tack it on the end of every bit of code we generate. That’s OK, but there’s a slightly smarter solution, we could have a fixed bit of byte code, common to everything, with FINISH in it. What we need to do is have our snippet of byte code jump to it.

Here we can take advantage of what we expect every function to do when we’ve called it which is to RETURN to the PC stored on the top of the stack.

So to make our FINISH trick work, we need to put the PC of the FINISH opcode on the top of the stack, and ensure that the bit of code we’re about to run has RETURN at the end. All things being equal, the code should trundle through, pushing values onto the stack and popping them off again until it gets to the end where it sees RETURN which will pop the PC of FINISH off the stack and start running from there. The opcode at that place is FINISH (that was the whole point) and ta da! we’re done.

*

Eager minds might wonder what happens if the code somehow fails to remove everything from the stack that it stuck on and we pop the wrong thing off the stack.

Well, under those circumstances, something has gone wrong. We’re reasonably unlikely to pop something off the stack that looks like a suitable value for RETURN – although it’s not impossible – partly because we have some “stack markers” identifying what’s coming next. The stack markers are partly there for debugging and partly there to catch our scenarios like this.

Most unexpected values for RETURN will result in a VM panic.

I suppose it’s not impossible to get a wrong but valid value for RETURN off the stack and things will stagger along unexpectedly. I’m not sure it’s possible to identify such a situation and it sounds like we’re into the same sorts of scenarios that real-world programs face with stack overflows, buffer overruns etc..

Prologue

Now, that work pushing the PC for FINISH on the stack and appending RETURN to code segments might seem like a whole load of jumping around for nothing but it turns out that a small collection of well-defined instructions in well-known places (hint: the start) are very handy for coping with several situations, not just stopping.

So we have a prologue generated just the once, available for all future byte code sequences to use, that encodes standard special case situations. Like stopping!

Starting

Starting is a bit easier. Each time we read in and compile a chunk of (source) code we’ll generate a new bit of byte code to run. We’ll have added that to our “big long list of byte coded program” and so our start can just set PC to the start of that chunk and let everything run.

We should have pushed the PC for FINISH in the prologue onto the stack and generated the trailing RETURN for the byte code and we should come to a controlled halt.

Running

That brings us to running. We need something to loop, running instructions until we FINISH.

OK, step back, re-jig things a little, and:

idio_vm_run() in src/vm.c
for (;;) {
    if (idio_vm_run1 (thr)) {
        ...
    }
}

If idio_vm_run1() returns 1 unless the opcode was FINISH in which case it returns 0 then we get our loop.

Position Independent Code

All the code we’re going to generate is going to be forward-looking and position independent. That is to say, that there’ll be no absolute references to PCs and jumps, in particular, will only be forwards into the byte stream.

Registers

val

“Everything returns a value” was our cri de cœur so let’s have a register for that value calling it, uh, val.

val becomes the action point for virtually everything:

  • the access of a value (lexical or free) updates val and when we’re setting a value it is given the value in val

  • the reference to a constant updates val

  • conditional statements test the value of val

  • the last action of a function call is to update val (and thus it becomes the function’s “return” value)

  • many operations (eg. testing arity) check against val on the assumption that the code has put the arguments in a frame in val

There are special opcodes to push the value in val onto the stack and to pop the value off the top of the stack into val.

You get the picture, val is where it’s happening.

reg1 & reg2

The specialised primitive opcodes which take more than one argument have similar stack popping commands to update reg1 and reg2 depending on how many arguments are required.

(Actually, there are no 3-fixed-argument primitives so reg2 is wasting space….)

Arguably, these could have been called val2 and val3 or something else that suggests they are supplementary to val and exist for dedicated function calls.

Closures do not use these registers as all the arguments to a closure will be in the supplied frame (in val).

stack

val can’t do it all. If we’re generating several values on the trot – think of passing lots of arguments to a function – then we need to stash those values somewhere whilst we calculate the next, commonly a stack.

PUSH-VALUE and POP-VALUE transfer values between the stack and val. For example, the byte code for (+ a 1) will:

  • evaluate + (here a symbolic reference to a function leaving the value in val)

  • PUSH-VALUE val onto the stack

  • evaluate a (here a symbolic reference to a value leaving the value in val)

  • PUSH-VALUE val onto the stack

  • evaluate 1 (here a specialised constant reference putting the value 1 in val)

  • PUSH-VALUE val onto the stack

More complicated expressions will result in more work but ultimately a value will be computed and the result left in val which will then be pushed onto the stack.

In this case, the code will continue to:

  • ALLOCATE-FRAME 3 (two fixed arguments plus a varargs placeholder) leaving a frame in val

  • POP-FRAME 1 popping the top of the stack (the value 1) into slot #1 of the frame in val

  • POP-FRAME 0 popping the top of the stack (the value of a) into slot #0 of the frame in val

So the stack represents the current state of the computation – a sort of “how far we’ve got” – which is what we need to know when we look to implement continuations.

The stack also becomes a handy place to stash things as computation progresses. Transient values such as traps, dynamic and environment variables, are ideally suited to live on the stack.

func

The expression in functional position (whether a symbol or an actual expression) is still something that needs evaluating to get an actual function value (a closure or a primitive) and we need to store that value somewhere before we get to one of the function invocation opcodes.

We could have stored it in val – indeed it will have been there transiently as part of its evaluation, see the example above – but then we’d need somewhere else to store arguments and it becomes a bit hard to follow when your function is in val.

Therefore there is an opcode to pop a value off the stack and into the register func.

The example above would have continued:

  • POP-FUNCTION popping the top of the stack (the value of +) into func

All we’ve done so far is spread the computed values for +, a and 1 across func and the frame in val. We don’t invoke the function yet because we (the VM) don’t know if it is a tail-recursive call or not and therefore whether we need to save the current state. The next opcodes will determine that.

frame

The idea of a frame of arguments to the current function comes from LiSP ([Que94]).

The basic premise is that as you make a nested set of function calls (normal behaviour!) then you get a corresponding stack of argument frames (actually a linked list but who’s counting?). Consider that foo a b calls bar x y then we have two frames, a b and x y with the values for each of the arguments supplied.

These are just simple C arrays (they were originally but are no longer Idio arrays) indexed 0, 1, 2, … and therefore

  • in bar we can access

    • our own first argument, x, as index 0 of the top frame on the stack

      This is the SHALLOW-ARGUMENT-REF0 we saw earlier.

    • our own second argument, y, as index 1 of the top frame on the stack

      This will be SHALLOW-ARGUMENT-REF1.

    • foo’s first argument, a, as index 0 of the next frame down the stack

      This is now a “deep argument reference”, DEEP-ARGUMENT-REF 1 0, where the first argument, 1, says go one frame backwards and the second argument, 0, says take the first index of that frame.

      Technically, SHALLOW-ARGUMENT-REF0 would be DEEP-ARGUMENT-REF 0 0 but we save encoding two integers into the byte code by using a dedicated opcode – and a lot of time (181ns versus 880ns on the standard unit of computing).

  • in foo, before and after the call the bar we can access

    • our own first argument, a, as index 0 of the top frame on the stack

      This is the SHALLOW-ARGUMENT-REF0 we saw earlier.

    • our own second argument, b, as index 1 of the top frame on the stack

      This will be SHALLOW-ARGUMENT-REF1.

    • these are the same opcodes as we had in bar except in foo the top-most frame is our own argument frame – the argument frame for bar either hasn’t existed yet or has been removed on return

    • no arguments to bar exist

You can imagine the mechanics of that as the arguments to each function call are evaluated then they are pushed onto the stack. An argument frame is constructed (and put in val) and the evaluated arguments are popped back off the stack and into the slots of the argument frame.

It doesn’t matter whether they are evaluated left to right, right to left or in some more complicated order so long as they are plucked back off the stack and into the argument frame in the correct order.

However, there is almost certainly something to be said for prescribing an evaluation order if only to assert some consistency. I say… left to right. There, done!

The generated code is going to look something like:

  • evaluate the expression in functional position (here, the symbol foo) and push the value func onto the stack

  • iterate over the arguments:

    • evaluate the expression corresponding to argument 1 and push the value a onto the stack

    • evaluate the expression corresponding to argument 2 and push the value b onto the stack

    We’ve run out of arguments, now, so we know we have two.

    That’s not quite how it works – as improper lists, ie. varargs need to be handled – but broadly the code is elegant for fixed formal parameters.

    This recursive “functional” flow is somewhat unnatural to the imperative style most of us are used to!

  • create an argument frame of size three (the above two arguments plus a varargs placeholder) – leaving it in val

  • iterate over the stacked argument values:

    • pop the top argument off the stack and into index 1 of the frame in val

    • pop the top argument off the stack and into index 0 of the frame in val

  • pop the function value off the stack and into func

  • invoke a function call!

Of course, we don’t stop there, in order to make the call to bar we need to repeat the above process for each of bar’s arguments.

But wait, what if, like the sidebox, the arguments are function calls themselves? For example, + 1 (* 2 3). Why, we just get recursive!

In practice, + and 1 are evaluated and pushed onto the stack. Our third argument is itself an entire expression but we just methodically plod on. We evaluate *, 2 and 3 pushing them onto the stack (which now has +, 1, *, 2 and 3 on it).

The function call protocol will pop 3 then 2 into an argument frame and * into func. The function will be invoked (not in tail position – an argument can never be in tail position as it is a sub-element of a wider piece of work) and leave a value, probably 6 in val.

This has now evaluated the second argument to +. The next action after evaluating an argument is to push val onto the stack. How very handy that the function call to * left the value in val! Our stack now has +, 1 and 6.

Finally, we can start the function protocol for + where 6 and 1 are popped off the stack and into an argument frame, + is popped off and into func and the function is invoked. (Maybe in tail-position – hard to tell from that snippet.)

Dynamic Registers

There are several values and behaviours that have a dynamic extent. When we create a trap handler, say, we expect to run for the lifetime of the encapsulated code and if another trap handler is registered within that encapsulated code then it is the first port of call and then us.

At the end of the encapsulated code we expect the handler to be unwound.

This becomes a chain of handlers and the obvious place for them to live is on the stack with opcodes embedded in the byte code to push them onto the stack and pop them off as the encapsulated code comes to be run and then completes.

The original wording continued:

Of course, something needs to point to the start of the chain, the dynamic registers: dynamic, environ and trap.

Albeit they actually called dynamic_sp, environ_sp and trap_sp in C.

In the early versions of Idio I added these dynamic registers – partly because there’s a suggestion about them in LiSP – but there’s a cost. Any (non-tail-recursive) function call needs to preserve these dynamic registers as well.

That might not seem a bad thing but there’s orders of magnitude more function calls than there are traps let alone dynamic or environ variables. That’s an awful lot of pushing onto and popping off the stack for no return.

So the code now reverts to the original LiSP mechanism of placing the traps/variables onto the stack as normal and when it comes time to look for a trap/handler we search down the stack for the appropriate stack marker.

That doesn’t seem like Art but the stack markers are unique and so long as no-one can trample on our stack then we should be safe. Of course, if, like anything else, someone tramples on our stack then all bets are off.

In the case of traps we can run “in the context of the next handler” by pushing the next handler (and its own next handler) on the top of the stack. Therefore, if required, it is now the handler on the top of the stack and still points at its own next handler in turn (beyond the original top-of-stack handler).

This mechanism also gives an ability to revert handlers mid-flow, reraise, by searching the stack for the highest ranking handler, that is the one with the highest “next” pointer and now pushing it (and its next handler) onto the top of the stack.

Fortunately, it does all get unwound correctly!

Dynamic Environment

As noted previously, there are some values that we keep handy in case someone asks for them. They form a dynamic environment which, in some senses, holds state, much like the stack does. It’s more convenient to hold them separately rather than search for them on the stack (where they could have lived).

Handles

Following Scheme we retain the concept of the current input, output and error handles – rather than the Unix assumption of (file descriptors) 0, 1 and 2.

So long as all the Idio code remembers to ask for the current input/output/error handle then everything just works.

That’s not quite true, today, mind. Large parts of the error handling and debug code assume stderr is good to go.

Module

We retain the idea of the current module. This is the result of the last instruction to change module.

It’s not really useful other than for someone asking, what’s the current module?

There is some standard(-ish) but suitably head-scratchingly complicated Idio code mixed across lib/module.idio and lib/call-cc.idio which handles the automatic reversion of the sense of the “current module” when the reader hits end of file (technically, when the load function completes).

Environment

We also retain the concept of the current environment for evaluating symbols in. This is a little more squirrelly.

Normally the environment will follow the module. However, when we call a function we switch to the environment that the function was defined in. This (replacement value) gets used when we have to resolve a symbol in the function and now points at the environment (module!) from when it was defined.

Normally symbols will have been resolved to a value index (which thereafter needs no concept of an environment) but where there was a forward lookup in a function then we’ll be dealing with a symbol index and we need to ask questions of the current environment – or, rather, the environment the function was defined in.

By way of example, you can imagine defining a library function in some utility module. That function is defined in the context of whatever local (to the utility module) variables and helper functions exist.

In your action module you want to call that library function. Clearly, when the library function needs to make use of its local variables it doesn’t want to confuse them with your local variables. Everyone has a variable, i, right? We don’t want mistakes to be made!

So, part of the “calling a function” protocol is to seamlessly save the current module and switch in the module of the function being called. Obviously(?) the calling protocol will restore the original.

In fact, although it’s not immediately obvious, both the environment module and the extant frame are saved and restored and the called function’s environment module and frame are substituted.

Those two elements constitute the context in which the library function was defined and therefore what needs to be manipulated as part of the function call protocol.

Expression

Experimental

For help with debugging we should have noted the source code expression (including source handle and line number) and be updating this value as we run through the code.

A single small expression in the source can balloon out to hundreds of lines of code if it was a template which does leave some mysterious debug.

Thread Value

I’ll be honest, I accidentally created a thread value because I was fed up of passing an increasing number of parameters around:

  • the PC

  • the stack

  • the various registers: val, frame, env, func, reg1, reg2

  • the current sigsetjmp(3) sigjmp_buf

  • the current input, output and error handles

  • (at the time) the trap, dynamic and environ stack pointers

  • the current module

It took me a long time to realise that, actually, such an value neatly encapsulates all of the dynamic environment of any thread of control running through the byte code.

Clearly, if/when I could be bothered it becomes trivial to instantiate another such instance and fork(2)/clone(2) it off or even, *shudders*, rustle up some native/POSIX/green/kernel/whatever thread, uh, threads.

In a previous version I implemented Bill Hails’ example of using continuations and a “trampoline” to provide green threads which was very cool.

*

In fact we do have (at least) two threads running although they never run at the same time. As well as the nominal thread we have the expansion thread which is used to maintain some sense of distance between the main working thread and the activities of expansion.

So, as well as having a different module to run in, expander, the PC, stack etc. are all in a separate thread value. As they run in the same operating system process, there’s nothing to stop them modifying each other’s namespace and we rely on common programming decency here.

In that sense, these thread values are not offering us any useful state or time domain distinctions but rather, very simply, offer to maintain distinct impressions of progress through the byte code.

You also have to be in C-land to jump between them. It’s not a user-facing thing.

Continuation Values

Ahead of a fuller (by which I mean, thoroughly brain frazzling) discussion on Continuations we should note that the idea of a continuation requires the ability to restore the program state as was and continue at some point with a (the) given value.

Originally, that took the form of remembering the stack, the frame and env, the sigsetjmp(3) sigjmp_buf and the to-be-resumed-at PC.

However, ruminations are leading me towards a more or less complete copy of the thread value as described above. The only elements that don’t need copying are the simpler registers (val, func, reg1 and reg2 – the former as we intend to replace it and the latter as they are only used to make function calls).

Particularly when recovering from errors, restoring the state of the current input, output and error handles seems as important as the frame and env. However, we trip over an issue with continuations and unwind-protect.

Here, the continuations would be at risk of saving, ready to restore, file descriptors that were transiently opened which will get closed in the cleanup thunk. That does happen in with-handle-redir in lib/job-control.idio although the problem isn’t restricted to there, anyone could make the same mistake.

Last built at 2024-12-21T07:11:06Z+0000 from 463152b (dev)