More Order-Independent Declarations | Bitwise Episode Guide

0:08Recap and set the stage for the day, with a plug of the GitHub commits newly tagged by day and the annotated episode guide

🗩

0:08Recap and set the stage for the day, with a plug of the GitHub commits newly tagged by day and the annotated episode guide

🗩

0:08Recap and set the stage for the day, with a plug of the GitHub commits newly tagged by day and the annotated episode guide

🗩

3:45Review off-stream work on buf__printf(), the Typespec struct and AST_DUP()

📖

3:45Review off-stream work on buf__printf(), the Typespec struct and AST_DUP()

📖

3:45Review off-stream work on buf__printf(), the Typespec struct and AST_DUP()

📖

8:08Review the current status of order-independent declaration support, with the determination to redo it handling ordering first

📖

8:08Review the current status of order-independent declaration support, with the determination to redo it handling ordering first

📖

8:08Review the current status of order-independent declaration support, with the determination to redo it handling ordering first

📖

13:41Introduce order_decl() and order_typespec()

23:52Introduce order_expr() and order_name()

31:54Introduce order_test()

33:56Run it and hit a syntax error

🏃

33:56Run it and hit a syntax error

🏃

33:56Run it and hit a syntax error

🏃

34:22Pull out code_decls[i] into a variable in order_test()

35:07Step in to order_test() and realise that it calls parse_decl() incorrectly

🏃

35:07Step in to order_test() and realise that it calls parse_decl() incorrectly

🏃

35:07Step in to order_test() and realise that it calls parse_decl() incorrectly

🏃

35:29Make order_test() call init_stream()

35:44Run it to see how it works

🏃

35:44Run it to see how it works

🏃

35:44Run it to see how it works

🏃

35:55Make every function that doesn't need an argument take void as an argument

37:44Introduce order_decls()

40:27Step into order_decls() to see what's going on

🏃

40:27Step into order_decls() to see what's going on

🏃

40:27Step into order_decls() to see what's going on

🏃

40:41Make order_decls() call order_name()

41:04Step through order_decls()

🏃

41:04Step through order_decls()

🏃

41:04Step through order_decls()

🏃

41:34Prevent main_test() from calling resolve_test()

42:15Step back through order_test()

🏃

42:15Step back through order_test()

🏃

42:15Step back through order_test()

🏃

42:18Add a variable-based declaration test case in order_test()

42:29Step in to order_decl() and inspect the decl

🏃

42:29Step in to order_decl() and inspect the decl

🏃

42:29Step in to order_decl() and inspect the decl

🏃

43:18Add an out-of-order test case in order_test()

43:25Step recursively through order_decl() to see what it does

🏃

43:25Step recursively through order_decl() to see what it does

🏃

43:25Step recursively through order_decl() to see what it does

🏃

44:42Add a cyclical declaration test case in order_test()

44:52Step through order_decl() to see how it handles it

🏃

44:52Step through order_decl() to see how it handles it

🏃

44:52Step through order_decl() to see how it handles it

🏃

45:18Add struct test cases in order_test()

46:29Step in to order_decl() to see how it parses our structs

🏃

46:29Step in to order_decl() to see how it parses our structs

🏃

46:29Step in to order_decl() to see how it parses our structs

🏃

47:02Introduce sym_builtin() to handle things like "int" in structs

49:16Run it to see how it handles our structs

🏃

49:16Run it to see how it handles our structs

🏃

49:16Run it to see how it handles our structs

🏃

50:20Add an out-of-order declared struct member test case

50:47Run it to see how that works

🏃

50:47Run it to see how that works

🏃

50:47Run it to see how that works

🏃

51:09Review the core of our algorithm, with the determination to handle pointers

📖

51:09Review the core of our algorithm, with the determination to handle pointers

📖

51:09Review the core of our algorithm, with the determination to handle pointers

📖

56:33Plan not to detect cycles in the ordering pass

🗩

56:33Plan not to detect cycles in the ordering pass

🗩

56:33Plan not to detect cycles in the ordering pass

🗩

58:58Q&A

🗩

58:58Q&A

🗩

58:58Q&A

🗩

59:04nothings2 pervognsen What case prevents you from just NOT ordering into pointer decls? If you said I missed it

🗪

59:04nothings2 pervognsen What case prevents you from just NOT ordering into pointer decls? If you said I missed it

🗪

59:04nothings2 pervognsen What case prevents you from just NOT ordering into pointer decls? If you said I missed it

🗪

59:27orcnz29 pervognsen For order-independent declarations, could you first do a scan through the top level (order-independent) declarations (funcs etc.) registering the names in the symbol table as unresolved, then do a full pass and do the your recursive type resolution as you go? The extra initial scan would only be at the global / top scope so it would / should be quick

🗪

59:27orcnz29 pervognsen For order-independent declarations, could you first do a scan through the top level (order-independent) declarations (funcs etc.) registering the names in the symbol table as unresolved, then do a full pass and do the your recursive type resolution as you go? The extra initial scan would only be at the global / top scope so it would / should be quick

🗪

59:27orcnz29 pervognsen For order-independent declarations, could you first do a scan through the top level (order-independent) declarations (funcs etc.) registering the names in the symbol table as unresolved, then do a full pass and do the your recursive type resolution as you go? The extra initial scan would only be at the global / top scope so it would / should be quick

🗪

1:00:31xanatos387 Is all of this only needed for the C backend, or does it apply for our own codegen as well?

🗪

1:00:31xanatos387 Is all of this only needed for the C backend, or does it apply for our own codegen as well?

🗪

1:00:31xanatos387 Is all of this only needed for the C backend, or does it apply for our own codegen as well?

🗪

1:02:28Consider the cases preventing us from not ordering into pointer declarations

🗩

1:02:28Consider the cases preventing us from not ordering into pointer declarations

🗩

1:02:28Consider the cases preventing us from not ordering into pointer declarations

🗩

1:04:44nothings2 I think you have to do it that way, otherwise there's no way to get 'struct S { T t; }; struct T { S *s;};' to work

🗪

1:04:44nothings2 I think you have to do it that way, otherwise there's no way to get 'struct S { T t; }; struct T { S *s;};' to work

🗪

1:04:44nothings2 I think you have to do it that way, otherwise there's no way to get 'struct S { T t; }; struct T { S *s;};' to work

🗪

1:05:51Validate Sean's cases

🏃

🖮

1:05:51Validate Sean's cases

🏃

🖮

1:05:51Validate Sean's cases

🏃

🖮

1:06:46Consider implementing enum parsing

🗩

1:06:46Consider implementing enum parsing

🗩

1:06:46Consider implementing enum parsing

🗩

1:08:52nothings2 pervognsen So you're not going to allow 'enum { A,B=X,C }; enum { X,Y=C,Z };'? I think it's possible to resolve it, but it's fine if you don't want to

🗪

1:08:52nothings2 pervognsen So you're not going to allow 'enum { A,B=X,C }; enum { X,Y=C,Z };'? I think it's possible to resolve it, but it's fine if you don't want to

🗪

1:08:52nothings2 pervognsen So you're not going to allow 'enum { A,B=X,C }; enum { X,Y=C,Z };'? I think it's possible to resolve it, but it's fine if you don't want to

🗪

1:11:19Implement enum support, introducing a SymKind enum for all of our sym_*() functions, including a new sym_enum_const(), to use

1:19:12Step in to order_decl() to see how enums get handled

🏃

1:19:12Step in to order_decl() to see how enums get handled

🏃

1:19:12Step in to order_decl() to see how enums get handled

🏃

1:21:00Enable order_name() to handle SYM_DECL specially

1:22:08Run it to see that it works

🏃

1:22:08Run it to see that it works

🏃

1:22:08Run it to see that it works

🏃

1:22:10Add some dependency tests in order_test()

1:22:30Run it to see what happens

🏃

1:22:30Run it to see what happens

🏃

1:22:30Run it to see what happens

🏃

1:24:14Make order_name() call itself rather than order_decl()

1:24:43Run it and unexpectedly hit a cyclic dependency

🏃

1:24:43Run it and unexpectedly hit a cyclic dependency

🏃

1:24:43Run it and unexpectedly hit a cyclic dependency

🏃

1:25:23Revert order_name() to call order_decl() for SYM_DECL, and itself only for SYM_ENUM_CONST

1:26:01Run it to see that it actually works

🏃

1:26:01Run it to see that it actually works

🏃

1:26:01Run it to see that it actually works

🏃

1:26:19Add an out-of-order declared enum test case in order_test()

1:26:29Run it to see that it works as expected

🏃

1:26:29Run it to see that it works as expected

🏃

1:26:29Run it to see that it works as expected

🏃

1:26:38Mention that the enum stuff will change

🗩

1:26:38Mention that the enum stuff will change

🗩

1:26:38Mention that the enum stuff will change

🗩

1:27:09Q&A

🗩

1:27:09Q&A

🗩

1:27:09Q&A

🗩

1:27:22nothings2 pervognsen Can you put sym_decl() and the preceding function on the screen while you're talking? I was AFK while you did it

🗪

1:27:22nothings2 pervognsen Can you put sym_decl() and the preceding function on the screen while you're talking? I was AFK while you did it

🗪

1:27:22nothings2 pervognsen Can you put sym_decl() and the preceding function on the screen while you're talking? I was AFK while you did it

🗪

1:27:58twicetimes pervognsen Will Ion have variable name shadowing?

🗪

1:27:58twicetimes pervognsen Will Ion have variable name shadowing?

🗪

1:27:58twicetimes pervognsen Will Ion have variable name shadowing?

🗪

1:29:17nothings2 I'd prefer to call that 'newcap' or something

🗪

1:29:17nothings2 I'd prefer to call that 'newcap' or something

🗪

1:29:17nothings2 I'd prefer to call that 'newcap' or something

🗪

1:29:25Rename the shadowed cap and n to new_cap and new_n in buf__printf()

1:30:26nothings2 pervognsen If you keep that code you have to assign n back to new_n, or replicate the final lines

🗪

1:30:26nothings2 pervognsen If you keep that code you have to assign n back to new_n, or replicate the final lines

🗪

1:30:26nothings2 pervognsen If you keep that code you have to assign n back to new_n, or replicate the final lines

🗪

1:30:29Revert buf__printf() to use the existing n, only renaming cap to new_cap

1:31:08A few thoughts on variable shadowing, and taking a step back and approaching problems from other directions

🗩

1:31:08A few thoughts on variable shadowing, and taking a step back and approaching problems from other directions

🗩

1:31:08A few thoughts on variable shadowing, and taking a step back and approaching problems from other directions

🗩

1:36:34nothings2 pervognsen Do you think your programming has changed since you were at RAD?

🗪

1:36:34nothings2 pervognsen Do you think your programming has changed since you were at RAD?

🗪

1:36:34nothings2 pervognsen Do you think your programming has changed since you were at RAD?

🗪

1:38:07ezysigh So, what kinds of things, i.e. what bad habits?

🗪

1:38:07ezysigh So, what kinds of things, i.e. what bad habits?

🗪

1:38:07ezysigh So, what kinds of things, i.e. what bad habits?

🗪

1:39:55That's enough philosophical digressions for one day

🗩

1:39:55That's enough philosophical digressions for one day

🗩

1:39:55That's enough philosophical digressions for one day

🗩

Bitwise

Keyboard Navigation

Global Keys

Menu toggling

In-Menu Movement

Quotes and References Menus

Quotes, References and Credits Menus

Filter Menu

Filter and Link Menus

Credits Menu