tlang/tlang
tlang
/
tlang
mirror of https://github.com/tbklang/tlang.git
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 40 Projects 5 Releases Wiki Activity

⚡ Feature: Add support for structs #118

New Issue
Open
opened 2023-04-21 23:33:54 +01:00 by deavmi · 23 comments
deavmi commented 2023-04-21 23:33:54 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

What is this?

Add support for structs via the struct keyword.

## What is this? Add support for structs via the `struct` keyword.
deavmi added this to the Basics milestone 2023-04-21 23:33:54 +01:00
deavmi added the
typing
dependency
parser
emit
 labels 2023-04-21 23:33:54 +01:00
deavmi self-assigned this 2023-04-21 23:33:55 +01:00
deavmi commented 2023-04-21 23:49:36 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

Pretty sure dependency generation for paths will be needed before deoendenecy generation can work correctly for it.

Pretty sure dependency generation for paths will be needed before deoendenecy generation can work correctly for it.
deavmi removed the due date 2023-05-13 2023-07-17 13:36:31 +01:00
deavmi added spent time 2023-07-17 13:36:37 +01:00
30 minutes
deavmi started working 2023-07-17 13:36:40 +01:00
deavmi added the due date 2023-07-31 2023-07-17 13:36:45 +01:00
deavmi stopped working 2023-07-17 13:36:48 +01:00
8 seconds
deavmi changed title from ⚡ Add support for structs to ⚡ Feature: Add support for structs 2023-07-17 13:36:54 +01:00
deavmi added reference feature/structs 2023-07-17 13:38:44 +01:00
deavmi added a new dependency 2023-07-17 13:40:07 +01:00
#117 🧠 Feature/Meta: Cloneable (round 1)
deavmi started working 2023-07-17 15:18:59 +01:00
deavmi commented 2023-07-17 15:19:09 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

Can continue working now that Struct has clone() support

Can continue working now that `Struct` has `clone()` support
deavmi stopped working 2023-07-17 16:01:57 +01:00
42 minutes 58 seconds
deavmi started working 2023-07-17 16:03:29 +01:00
deavmi stopped working 2023-07-17 16:09:11 +01:00
5 minutes 41 seconds
deavmi commented 2023-07-17 16:10:59 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

Progress 🚧

Given the code:

module simple_structs_with_static_inits;

class Cart
{
    static int items;
    static int balance;
}

struct User
{
    Cart cart;
    byte* name;
    int age;
}

User u1;
User u2;

So far so good, looks like cloning helped. The queues are below:

[INFO] <<<<< FINAL ALLOCATE QUEUE >>>>>
[INFO] InitQueue: 1/1: [Instruction: tlang.compiler.codegen.instruction.ClassStaticInitAllocate:classStaticInitAllocate: simple_structs_with_static_inits.Cart]
[INFO] <<<<< FINAL CODE QUEUE >>>>>
[INFO] 1/10: [Instruction: tlang.compiler.codegen.instruction.VariableDeclaration:varName: simple_structs_with_static_inits.Cart.items]
[INFO] 2/10: [Instruction: tlang.compiler.codegen.instruction.VariableDeclaration:varName: simple_structs_with_static_inits.Cart.balance]
[INFO] 3/10: [Instruction: tlang.compiler.codegen.instruction.VariableDeclaration:varName: simple_structs_with_static_inits.User.cart]
[INFO] 4/10: [Instruction: tlang.compiler.codegen.instruction.VariableDeclaration:varName: simple_structs_with_static_inits.User.name]
[INFO] 5/10: [Instruction: tlang.compiler.codegen.instruction.VariableDeclaration:varName: simple_structs_with_static_inits.User.age]
[INFO] 6/10: [Instruction: tlang.compiler.codegen.instruction.VariableDeclaration:varName: simple_structs_with_static_inits.u1]
[INFO] 7/10: [Instruction: tlang.compiler.codegen.instruction.VariableDeclaration:varName: simple_structs_with_static_inits.User.cart]
[INFO] 8/10: [Instruction: tlang.compiler.codegen.instruction.VariableDeclaration:varName: simple_structs_with_static_inits.User.name]
[INFO] 9/10: [Instruction: tlang.compiler.codegen.instruction.VariableDeclaration:varName: simple_structs_with_static_inits.User.age]
[INFO] 10/10: [Instruction: tlang.compiler.codegen.instruction.VariableDeclaration:varName: simple_structs_with_static_inits.u2]
## Progress 🚧 Given the code: ```d module simple_structs_with_static_inits; class Cart { static int items; static int balance; } struct User { Cart cart; byte* name; int age; } User u1; User u2; ``` So far so good, looks like cloning helped. The queues are below: ``` [INFO] <<<<< FINAL ALLOCATE QUEUE >>>>> [INFO] InitQueue: 1/1: [Instruction: tlang.compiler.codegen.instruction.ClassStaticInitAllocate:classStaticInitAllocate: simple_structs_with_static_inits.Cart] [INFO] <<<<< FINAL CODE QUEUE >>>>> [INFO] 1/10: [Instruction: tlang.compiler.codegen.instruction.VariableDeclaration:varName: simple_structs_with_static_inits.Cart.items] [INFO] 2/10: [Instruction: tlang.compiler.codegen.instruction.VariableDeclaration:varName: simple_structs_with_static_inits.Cart.balance] [INFO] 3/10: [Instruction: tlang.compiler.codegen.instruction.VariableDeclaration:varName: simple_structs_with_static_inits.User.cart] [INFO] 4/10: [Instruction: tlang.compiler.codegen.instruction.VariableDeclaration:varName: simple_structs_with_static_inits.User.name] [INFO] 5/10: [Instruction: tlang.compiler.codegen.instruction.VariableDeclaration:varName: simple_structs_with_static_inits.User.age] [INFO] 6/10: [Instruction: tlang.compiler.codegen.instruction.VariableDeclaration:varName: simple_structs_with_static_inits.u1] [INFO] 7/10: [Instruction: tlang.compiler.codegen.instruction.VariableDeclaration:varName: simple_structs_with_static_inits.User.cart] [INFO] 8/10: [Instruction: tlang.compiler.codegen.instruction.VariableDeclaration:varName: simple_structs_with_static_inits.User.name] [INFO] 9/10: [Instruction: tlang.compiler.codegen.instruction.VariableDeclaration:varName: simple_structs_with_static_inits.User.age] [INFO] 10/10: [Instruction: tlang.compiler.codegen.instruction.VariableDeclaration:varName: simple_structs_with_static_inits.u2] ```
deavmi started working 2023-07-17 16:11:01 +01:00
deavmi stopped working 2023-07-17 16:11:11 +01:00
10 seconds
deavmi started working 2023-07-17 21:14:46 +01:00
deavmi added this to the Dependency tree, type-checking and codegen project 2023-07-17 21:17:20 +01:00
deavmi modified the project from Dependency tree, type-checking and codegen to Parser 2023-07-17 21:17:31 +01:00
deavmi stopped working 2023-07-17 21:17:40 +01:00
2 minutes 54 seconds
deavmi added spent time 2023-07-21 22:10:18 +01:00
1 hour
deavmi started working 2023-07-21 22:10:20 +01:00
deavmi stopped working 2023-07-22 11:56:43 +01:00
13 hours 46 minutes
deavmi added spent time 2023-07-22 11:56:53 +01:00
1 minute
deavmi started working 2023-07-22 17:12:40 +01:00
deavmi stopped working 2023-07-22 17:18:29 +01:00
5 minutes 49 seconds
deavmi added spent time 2023-07-22 17:30:15 +01:00
6 minutes
deavmi started working 2023-07-22 17:30:18 +01:00
deavmi stopped working 2023-07-22 17:36:10 +01:00
5 minutes 52 seconds
deavmi added spent time 2023-07-26 16:11:26 +01:00
1 hour 10 minutes
deavmi started working 2023-07-26 16:11:29 +01:00
deavmi commented 2023-07-26 16:12:10 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

Working on this again today, trying my new ideas out.

So far so good, cloned some stuff according to the Metaprocessor trick I am using. "Trick" is a bad word, it makes sense and is very logical considering how nice my language aims to be.

Working on this again today, trying my new ideas out. So far so good, cloned some stuff according to the Metaprocessor trick I am using. "Trick" is a bad word, it makes sense and is very logical considering how nice my language aims to be.
deavmi commented 2023-07-26 16:12:31 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

Now just symbol mapper-related things to consider. This will be epic sussy.

Now just symbol mapper-related things to consider. This will be epic sussy.
deavmi stopped working 2023-07-26 16:12:50 +01:00
1 minute 21 seconds
deavmi started working 2023-07-26 17:55:10 +01:00
deavmi commented 2023-07-26 17:55:25 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

A little drunk now but gonna continue

A **little** drunk now but gonna continue
deavmi stopped working 2023-07-26 18:19:08 +01:00
23 minutes 57 seconds
deavmi added spent time 2023-08-07 09:29:28 +01:00
20 minutes
deavmi started working 2023-08-07 09:29:31 +01:00
deavmi commented 2023-08-07 09:29:36 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

Working on tis again now....

Working on tis again now....
deavmi stopped working 2023-08-07 09:29:45 +01:00
14 seconds
deavmi started working 2023-08-07 09:34:54 +01:00
deavmi stopped working 2023-08-07 09:50:43 +01:00
15 minutes 48 seconds
deavmi started working 2023-08-07 09:55:49 +01:00
deavmi stopped working 2023-08-07 09:56:42 +01:00
52 seconds
deavmi modified the due date from 2023-07-31 to 2023-08-06 2023-08-08 07:32:00 +01:00
deavmi modified the due date from 2023-08-06 to 2023-08-20 2023-08-08 07:32:11 +01:00
deavmi started working 2023-08-08 07:32:13 +01:00
deavmi stopped working 2023-08-08 07:32:17 +01:00
4 seconds
deavmi added spent time 2023-08-08 07:32:22 +01:00
10 minutes
deavmi started working 2023-08-08 07:32:24 +01:00
deavmi commented 2023-08-08 07:32:41 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

Okay, I think I just got it working. Going to have to stage the changed files now.

Okay, I think I just got it working. Going to have to stage the changed files now.
deavmi commented 2023-08-08 07:39:54 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

Todo

  • emit -> emit_c
    • It is for controlling the C emitter specifically, so we should do that maybe
  • More stringent test cases which test the struct hash path stuff more harshly
    • Struct typed variable instances as memebrs of other struct types
  • Pointer support for StructVariableInstance
    • Example, we want the & to work (currently gives Segmentation Fault)
    • Code: User* ptr = &u1;
    • Rudimentary support for &u1 has been added where u1 refers to a StructVariableInstance
    • Support &u1.name
## Todo - [ ] `emit` -> `emit_c` * It is for controlling the C emitter specifically, so we should do that **maybe** - [ ] More stringent test cases which test the struct hash path stuff more harshly - [ ] Struct typed variable instances as memebrs of other struct types - [ ] Pointer support for `StructVariableInstance` * Example, we want the `&` to work (currently gives Segmentation Fault) * Code: `User* ptr = &u1;` - [x] Rudimentary support for `&u1` has been added where `u1` refers to a `StructVariableInstance` - [ ] Support `&u1.name`
deavmi stopped working 2023-08-08 07:42:08 +01:00
9 minutes 44 seconds
deavmi modified the project from Parser to Dependency tree, type-checking and codegen 2023-08-08 07:42:39 +01:00
deavmi started working 2023-08-08 07:47:13 +01:00
deavmi stopped working 2023-08-08 07:47:18 +01:00
5 seconds
deavmi started working 2023-08-08 15:15:57 +01:00
deavmi stopped working 2023-08-08 18:01:10 +01:00
2 hours 45 minutes
deavmi started working 2023-08-08 18:07:45 +01:00
deavmi stopped working 2023-08-08 18:08:24 +01:00
39 seconds
deavmi started working 2023-08-10 18:50:15 +01:00
deavmi commented 2023-08-10 18:54:22 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

I've merged newest changes of vardec_varass_dependency into here and now CI/CD is all green ✅ (due to #115 being merged in)

I've merged newest changes of `vardec_varass_dependency` into here and now CI/CD is all green ✅ (due to #115 being merged in)
deavmi stopped working 2023-08-10 18:54:26 +01:00
4 minutes 11 seconds
deavmi started working 2023-08-15 07:32:51 +01:00
deavmi commented 2023-08-15 07:32:59 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

Working on this again now.

Working on this again now.
deavmi commented 2023-08-15 07:36:29 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

New challenge

Currently testing out complex_structs.t which makes use of a variable of of a struct-based type (Cart) as a member of a struct type:

module complex_structs;

struct Cart
{
    int count;
}

struct User
{
    int age;
    Cart cart;
}

User u1;

void function()
{
    
}

Currently it segfaults:

[INFO] Our replacement AST node: StructVariableInstance (name: cart, type: Cart)
[INFO] You cannot park da kar deerr
[INFO] MetaProcessor: Examining AST node 'Function (Name: function, ReturnType: void, Args: )'...
[INFO] Nah fr
[INFO] MetaProcessor: Examining AST node 'Variable (Ident: u1, Type: User)'...
[INFO] Nah fr
[INFO] getBuiltInType(User)
[ERROR] getBuiltInType(User): Failed to map to a built-in type
[INFO] resolveUp(1, User)
[INFO] Poes
[INFO] Struct (Name: User)
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
## New challenge Currently testing out `complex_structs.t` which makes use of a variable of of a `struct`-based type (`Cart`) as a member of a struct type: ```d module complex_structs; struct Cart { int count; } struct User { int age; Cart cart; } User u1; void function() { } ``` Currently it segfaults: ``` [INFO] Our replacement AST node: StructVariableInstance (name: cart, type: Cart) [INFO] You cannot park da kar deerr [INFO] MetaProcessor: Examining AST node 'Function (Name: function, ReturnType: void, Args: )'... [INFO] Nah fr [INFO] MetaProcessor: Examining AST node 'Variable (Ident: u1, Type: User)'... [INFO] Nah fr [INFO] getBuiltInType(User) [ERROR] getBuiltInType(User): Failed to map to a built-in type [INFO] resolveUp(1, User) [INFO] Poes [INFO] Struct (Name: User) Segmentation fault (core dumped) ```
deavmi stopped working 2023-08-15 07:43:42 +01:00
10 minutes 51 seconds
deavmi started working 2023-08-15 07:43:44 +01:00
deavmi stopped working 2023-08-15 07:43:49 +01:00
5 seconds
deavmi started working 2023-08-15 07:54:53 +01:00
deavmi commented 2023-08-15 07:57:29 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

New challenge

Currently testing out complex_structs.t which makes use of a variable of of a struct-based type (Cart) as a member of a struct type:

module complex_structs;

struct Cart
{
    int count;
}

struct User
{
    int age;
    Cart cart;
}

User u1;

void function()
{
    
}

Currently it segfaults:

[INFO] Our replacement AST node: StructVariableInstance (name: cart, type: Cart)
[INFO] You cannot park da kar deerr
[INFO] MetaProcessor: Examining AST node 'Function (Name: function, ReturnType: void, Args: )'...
[INFO] Nah fr
[INFO] MetaProcessor: Examining AST node 'Variable (Ident: u1, Type: User)'...
[INFO] Nah fr
[INFO] getBuiltInType(User)
[ERROR] getBuiltInType(User): Failed to map to a built-in type
[INFO] resolveUp(1, User)
[INFO] Poes
[INFO] Struct (Name: User)
Segmentation fault (core dumped)

Seems like a post-AST replacement check issue, working on the fix now...

> ## New challenge > > Currently testing out `complex_structs.t` which makes use of a variable of of a `struct`-based type (`Cart`) as a member of a struct type: > > ```d > module complex_structs; > > struct Cart > { > int count; > } > > struct User > { > int age; > Cart cart; > } > > User u1; > > void function() > { > > } > ``` > > Currently it segfaults: > > ``` > [INFO] Our replacement AST node: StructVariableInstance (name: cart, type: Cart) > [INFO] You cannot park da kar deerr > [INFO] MetaProcessor: Examining AST node 'Function (Name: function, ReturnType: void, Args: )'... > [INFO] Nah fr > [INFO] MetaProcessor: Examining AST node 'Variable (Ident: u1, Type: User)'... > [INFO] Nah fr > [INFO] getBuiltInType(User) > [ERROR] getBuiltInType(User): Failed to map to a built-in type > [INFO] resolveUp(1, User) > [INFO] Poes > [INFO] Struct (Name: User) > Segmentation fault (core dumped) > ``` Seems like a post-AST replacement check issue, working on the fix now...
deavmi commented 2023-08-15 08:36:25 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

New challenge

Currently testing out complex_structs.t which makes use of a variable of of a struct-based type (Cart) as a member of a struct type:

module complex_structs;

struct Cart
{
    int count;
}

struct User
{
    int age;
    Cart cart;
}

User u1;

void function()
{
    
}

Currently it segfaults:

[INFO] Our replacement AST node: StructVariableInstance (name: cart, type: Cart)
[INFO] You cannot park da kar deerr
[INFO] MetaProcessor: Examining AST node 'Function (Name: function, ReturnType: void, Args: )'...
[INFO] Nah fr
[INFO] MetaProcessor: Examining AST node 'Variable (Ident: u1, Type: User)'...
[INFO] Nah fr
[INFO] getBuiltInType(User)
[ERROR] getBuiltInType(User): Failed to map to a built-in type
[INFO] resolveUp(1, User)
[INFO] Poes
[INFO] Struct (Name: User)
Segmentation fault (core dumped)

Seems like a post-AST replacement check issue, working on the fix now...

The problem with this approach, or from what I can see is nested StructVariableInstances have the problem that when they appear inside of a struct we will affectively have the wrong things pushed to the end of the code queue for consumption.

However, actually - I am not sure how much this is to blame for this solution we have chosen. This more stems from the fact we have a Container-type node, the StructVariableInstance and it has members within. This would have been the case if we had done this during parse time too.

So I just have to find a neat work around for it in the type checker.

> > ## New challenge > > > > Currently testing out `complex_structs.t` which makes use of a variable of of a `struct`-based type (`Cart`) as a member of a struct type: > > > > ```d > > module complex_structs; > > > > struct Cart > > { > > int count; > > } > > > > struct User > > { > > int age; > > Cart cart; > > } > > > > User u1; > > > > void function() > > { > > > > } > > ``` > > > > Currently it segfaults: > > > > ``` > > [INFO] Our replacement AST node: StructVariableInstance (name: cart, type: Cart) > > [INFO] You cannot park da kar deerr > > [INFO] MetaProcessor: Examining AST node 'Function (Name: function, ReturnType: void, Args: )'... > > [INFO] Nah fr > > [INFO] MetaProcessor: Examining AST node 'Variable (Ident: u1, Type: User)'... > > [INFO] Nah fr > > [INFO] getBuiltInType(User) > > [ERROR] getBuiltInType(User): Failed to map to a built-in type > > [INFO] resolveUp(1, User) > > [INFO] Poes > > [INFO] Struct (Name: User) > > Segmentation fault (core dumped) > > ``` > > Seems like a post-AST replacement check issue, working on the fix now... The problem with this approach, or from what I can see is nested `StructVariableInstance`s have the problem that when they appear inside of a struct we will affectively have the wrong things pushed to the end of the code queue for consumption. **However**, actually - I am not sure how much this is to blame for this solution we have chosen. This more stems from the fact we have a `Container`-type node, the `StructVariableInstance` and it has members within. This would have been the case if we had done this during parse time too. So I just have to find a neat work around for it in the type checker.
deavmi commented 2023-08-15 08:37:34 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

New challenge

Currently testing out complex_structs.t which makes use of a variable of of a struct-based type (Cart) as a member of a struct type:

module complex_structs;

struct Cart
{
    int count;
}

struct User
{
    int age;
    Cart cart;
}

User u1;

void function()
{
    
}

Currently it segfaults:

[INFO] Our replacement AST node: StructVariableInstance (name: cart, type: Cart)
[INFO] You cannot park da kar deerr
[INFO] MetaProcessor: Examining AST node 'Function (Name: function, ReturnType: void, Args: )'...
[INFO] Nah fr
[INFO] MetaProcessor: Examining AST node 'Variable (Ident: u1, Type: User)'...
[INFO] Nah fr
[INFO] getBuiltInType(User)
[ERROR] getBuiltInType(User): Failed to map to a built-in type
[INFO] resolveUp(1, User)
[INFO] Poes
[INFO] Struct (Name: User)
Segmentation fault (core dumped)

Seems like a post-AST replacement check issue, working on the fix now...

The problem with this approach, or from what I can see is nested StructVariableInstances have the problem that when they appear inside of a struct we will affectively have the wrong things pushed to the end of the code queue for consumption.

However, actually - I am not sure how much this is to blame for this solution we have chosen. This more stems from the fact we have a Container-type node, the StructVariableInstance and it has members within. This would have been the case if we had done this during parse time too.

So I just have to find a neat work around for it in the type checker.

Wait, no I think I am dumb. This isn't it, I can see the code queue - my method is correct. I just need to cast to the common type of StorageDeclaration and not VariableDeclaration (which is derived from Variable-based members) and then StructInstantiateInstruction (which is derived from StructInstanceVariable-based members).

> > > ## New challenge > > > > > > Currently testing out `complex_structs.t` which makes use of a variable of of a `struct`-based type (`Cart`) as a member of a struct type: > > > > > > ```d > > > module complex_structs; > > > > > > struct Cart > > > { > > > int count; > > > } > > > > > > struct User > > > { > > > int age; > > > Cart cart; > > > } > > > > > > User u1; > > > > > > void function() > > > { > > > > > > } > > > ``` > > > > > > Currently it segfaults: > > > > > > ``` > > > [INFO] Our replacement AST node: StructVariableInstance (name: cart, type: Cart) > > > [INFO] You cannot park da kar deerr > > > [INFO] MetaProcessor: Examining AST node 'Function (Name: function, ReturnType: void, Args: )'... > > > [INFO] Nah fr > > > [INFO] MetaProcessor: Examining AST node 'Variable (Ident: u1, Type: User)'... > > > [INFO] Nah fr > > > [INFO] getBuiltInType(User) > > > [ERROR] getBuiltInType(User): Failed to map to a built-in type > > > [INFO] resolveUp(1, User) > > > [INFO] Poes > > > [INFO] Struct (Name: User) > > > Segmentation fault (core dumped) > > > ``` > > > > Seems like a post-AST replacement check issue, working on the fix now... > > The problem with this approach, or from what I can see is nested `StructVariableInstance`s have the problem that when they appear inside of a struct we will affectively have the wrong things pushed to the end of the code queue for consumption. > > **However**, actually - I am not sure how much this is to blame for this solution we have chosen. This more stems from the fact we have a `Container`-type node, the `StructVariableInstance` and it has members within. This would have been the case if we had done this during parse time too. > > So I just have to find a neat work around for it in the type checker. Wait, no I think I am dumb. This isn't it, I can see the code queue - my method is correct. I just need to cast to the common type of `StorageDeclaration` and not `VariableDeclaration` (which is derived from `Variable`-based members) and then `StructInstantiateInstruction` (which is derived from `StructInstanceVariable`-based members).
deavmi stopped working 2023-08-15 08:42:39 +01:00
47 minutes 45 seconds
deavmi started working 2023-08-15 08:45:35 +01:00
deavmi commented 2023-08-15 08:57:10 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

I may now be onto something, successful compilation of:

module complex_structs;

struct Cart
{
    int count;
}

struct User
{
    int age;
    Cart cart;
}

User u1;

void function()
{
    
}

To the C-emitted code:

/**
 * TLP compiler generated code
 *
 * Module name: complex_structs
 * Output C file: tlangout.c
 *
 * Place any extra information by code
 * generator here
 */
#include<stdint.h>
struct Cart
{
	int32_t count;
};
struct User
{
	int32_t age;
	struct Cart t_30ee962df44239321472851155e91eec;
};

struct User t_90cc2c8f72f9d7b295a5724406bb8e24;

void function();

void function()
{
}


int main()
{
    return 0;
}
I may now be onto something, successful compilation of: ```d module complex_structs; struct Cart { int count; } struct User { int age; Cart cart; } User u1; void function() { } ``` To the C-emitted code: ```c /** * TLP compiler generated code * * Module name: complex_structs * Output C file: tlangout.c * * Place any extra information by code * generator here */ #include<stdint.h> struct Cart { int32_t count; }; struct User { int32_t age; struct Cart t_30ee962df44239321472851155e91eec; }; struct User t_90cc2c8f72f9d7b295a5724406bb8e24; void function(); void function() { } int main() { return 0; } ```
deavmi stopped working 2023-08-15 08:57:18 +01:00
11 minutes 44 seconds
deavmi started working 2023-08-15 10:19:05 +01:00
deavmi stopped working 2023-08-15 10:25:03 +01:00
5 minutes 59 seconds
deavmi started working 2023-08-15 19:43:35 +01:00
deavmi stopped working 2023-08-15 20:03:05 +01:00
19 minutes 29 seconds
deavmi added a new dependency 2023-08-16 08:58:32 +01:00
#152 🧠️ Ideation: Loaders
deavmi started working 2023-08-16 09:56:40 +01:00
deavmi commented 2023-08-16 09:58:24 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

Now that #153 is fixed the test case complex_structs.t now compiles.

Now that #153 is fixed the test case `complex_structs.t` now compiles.
deavmi stopped working 2023-08-16 09:58:40 +01:00
2 minutes 1 second
deavmi started working 2023-08-16 10:10:49 +01:00
deavmi stopped working 2023-08-16 10:12:45 +01:00
1 minute 56 seconds
deavmi started working 2023-08-27 12:02:32 +01:00
deavmi commented 2023-08-27 12:04:05 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

Updated with latest code from vardec_varass_dependency. The code coverage should be higher now. 👍

Updated with latest code from `vardec_varass_dependency`. The code coverage should be higher now. 👍
deavmi stopped working 2023-08-27 12:04:09 +01:00
1 minute 37 seconds
deavmi modified the due date from 2023-08-20 to 2023-08-31 2023-08-27 12:08:03 +01:00
deavmi commented 2023-08-27 12:44:17 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

Just added complex_structs.tandsimple_structs.tto run as part of the D-based unit tests (not _just_ having them ind.yml`).

This should also increase code coverage.

Just added complex_structs.t` and `simple_structs.t` to run as part of the D-based unit tests (not _just_ having them in `d.yml`). This should also increase code coverage.
deavmi added spent time 2023-08-27 12:44:26 +01:00
1 minute
deavmi started working 2023-10-27 09:09:38 +01:00
deavmi commented 2023-10-27 09:11:59 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

I am thinking about how we have gone about this. I might want to open a similar PR that does this but differently.

I think that if we do it this way, which honestly does sound proper, we may run into issues regarding struct types with member variables of other struct types.

I believe that we may somehow, during parse time, need to build up a symbol table maybe.

If we parse a struct like so:

struct StrType1
{
    StrType2 varMem;
}

Mmmh, even with this we would need resolution at parse time which we do NOT have. Nor do I think it would be right to add that.

I will sit on and ponder this as within the parsing startergy there are various ways to go about this.

I am thinking about how we have gone about this. I might want to open a similar PR that does this but differently. I think that if we do it this way, which honestly does sound proper, we may run into issues regarding struct types with member variables of other struct types. I believe that we may somehow, during parse time, need to build up a symbol table maybe. If we parse a struct like so: ```d struct StrType1 { StrType2 varMem; } ``` Mmmh, even with this we would need resolution at parse time **which we do NOT have**. Nor do I think it would be right to add that. --- I will sit on and ponder this as within the parsing startergy there are various ways to go about this.
deavmi commented 2023-10-27 09:13:41 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

I am thinking about how we have gone about this. I might want to open a similar PR that does this but differently.

I think that if we do it this way, which honestly does sound proper, we may run into issues regarding struct types with member variables of other struct types.

I believe that we may somehow, during parse time, need to build up a symbol table maybe.

If we parse a struct like so:

struct StrType1
{
    StrType2 varMem;
}

Mmmh, even with this we would need resolution at parse time which we do NOT have. Nor do I think it would be right to add that.

I will sit on and ponder this as within the parsing startergy there are various ways to go about this.

MMmh, is this correct? Let me check... 🧠

> I am thinking about how we have gone about this. I might want to open a similar PR that does this but differently. > > I think that if we do it this way, which honestly does sound proper, we may run into issues regarding struct types with member variables of other struct types. > > I believe that we may somehow, during parse time, need to build up a symbol table maybe. > > If we parse a struct like so: > > ```d > struct StrType1 > { > StrType2 varMem; > } > ``` > > Mmmh, even with this we would need resolution at parse time **which we do NOT have**. Nor do I think it would be right to add that. > > --- > > I will sit on and ponder this as within the parsing startergy there are various ways to go about this. MMmh, is this correct? Let me check... 🧠
deavmi commented 2023-10-27 09:15:24 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

I am thinking about how we have gone about this. I might want to open a similar PR that does this but differently.

I think that if we do it this way, which honestly does sound proper, we may run into issues regarding struct types with member variables of other struct types.

I believe that we may somehow, during parse time, need to build up a symbol table maybe.

If we parse a struct like so:

struct StrType1
{
    StrType2 varMem;
}

Mmmh, even with this we would need resolution at parse time which we do NOT have. Nor do I think it would be right to add that.

I will sit on and ponder this as within the parsing startergy there are various ways to go about this.

MMmh, is this correct? Let me check... 🧠

Update of thoughts in October

Well, actually my system does support this:

module complex_structs;

struct Cart
{
    int count;
}

struct User
{
    int age;
    Cart cart;
}

User u1;

void function()
{
    int userAge = u1.age;
    Cart* userCart = &u1.cart;
    int userCartCount = u1.cart.count;
}

Also, we need not worry about a struct A which contains a member of type B which contains A. That is impossible in any language with a struct, it must be a DAG.

Mmh, well then. Maybe this method will then work. :)

I was thinking in the case of class-based types, in such a case we will need a similar type-init (for static inits) and then instance init, where instances can be of a type which has mutual references. Going to open thoughts for this on #158.

> > I am thinking about how we have gone about this. I might want to open a similar PR that does this but differently. > > > > I think that if we do it this way, which honestly does sound proper, we may run into issues regarding struct types with member variables of other struct types. > > > > I believe that we may somehow, during parse time, need to build up a symbol table maybe. > > > > If we parse a struct like so: > > > > ```d > > struct StrType1 > > { > > StrType2 varMem; > > } > > ``` > > > > Mmmh, even with this we would need resolution at parse time **which we do NOT have**. Nor do I think it would be right to add that. > > > > --- > > > > I will sit on and ponder this as within the parsing startergy there are various ways to go about this. > > MMmh, is this correct? Let me check... 🧠 ### Update of thoughts in October Well, actually my system _does_ support this: ```d module complex_structs; struct Cart { int count; } struct User { int age; Cart cart; } User u1; void function() { int userAge = u1.age; Cart* userCart = &u1.cart; int userCartCount = u1.cart.count; } ``` Also, we need not worry about a struct `A` which contains a member of type `B` which contains `A`. That is impossible in _any_ language with a struct, it must be a DAG. --- Mmh, well then. Maybe this method will then work. :) I was thinking in the case of class-based types, in such a case we will need a similar type-init (for static inits) and then instance init, where instances can be of a type which has mutual references. Going to open thoughts for this on #158.
deavmi removed the due date 2023-08-31 2023-10-27 09:19:24 +01:00
deavmi added the due date 2023-11-30 2023-10-27 09:19:33 +01:00
deavmi stopped working 2023-10-27 09:19:35 +01:00
9 minutes 57 seconds
deavmi commented 2023-11-06 09:37:51 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

This should be finished prior to #157 as I want to get these changes in and upstream them into that issue's branch, rather than deal with many merge conflicts later.

This should be finished prior to #157 as I want to get these changes in and upstream them into that issue's branch, rather than deal with many merge conflicts later.
Sign in to join this conversation.
feature/structs
Branches Tags
Clear current reference
master
feature/modifiers
feature/comments
feature/operator_precedence
vardec_varass_dependency
feature/reporting
bugfix/single_line_comment_bug
feature/logging_upgrade
feature/multi_module
feature/unused_vars_detection
feature/container_methods
feature/strat_resolve_collectors
feature/predicate_based_resolver
feature/poolmngr
hotfix/func_defs_in_dep_generator
feature/lexer_improvements
feature/structs
feature/behavec_preinline
bugfix/fix_multi_compile
feature/annotations
hotfix/simply_varexp_dnode_generation
hotfix/jcli_upgrade_fix
feature/class_static_init
feature/universal_coercion
feature/cloneability
hotfix/expect_exception_change
bugfix/recursive_return_statement_check
bugfix/require_return
bugfix/return_type
feature/cleanup1
feature/clean_lexer_interface
research/gmalloc
feature/type_enforcer_cast_instr_emit
feature/meta_programming
feature/direct_func_call
bugfix/return_position
bugfix/is_same_type_fallback
feature/lexer_interface
feature/parser_interface
arrays
pointers
bugfix/function_parameter_type_parse
casting
compiler_object
extern_symbols
literal_encodings
uniform_stdalone_varass
remove_typequeue
linearizer_cleanup
parsetypedev_fix
modules
loops
conditionals
vdva_func_param_merge
function_parameters_fix
path_dependency
function_dep
compiler_levels
parser
constants
constants_float
develop
typecheck
deps_refactor
codegen
lexer
typecheck_refactor_varexp_makeacyclic
weighting
testing_thing
typecheck_refactor_varexp
typecheck_refactor
type_check_codegen_reducedparseclass_excep
typecheck_codegen
typecheck_codegen_educedparseclass
typecheck_reliancetree
static_support
codegen.sync-conflict-20210606-150925-O3W7KWN
develop.sync-conflict-20210606-150924-O3W7KWN
struct_support
typecheck.sync-conflict-20210606-150925-O3W7KWN
entity_declaration_type_checking
symbol_table
parser.sync-conflict-20210405-185821-O3W7KWN
parser_exception_before
develop_before_lexer_parser_merge_parseName
if_statement_parsing
exception_except
expression_parsing
master.sync-conflict-20210316-165421-O3W7KWN
expression_parsing.sync-conflict-20210316-090018-O3W7KWN
Clear current reference
multimodule/changeset2
multimodule/changeset1
pointer_cast_merge
parsetypeddeclaration_onlytype_parsecast_new
pointers_coerce
v0.5.3
v0.5.2
v0.5.1
v0.5.0
v0.4.4
v0.4.3
v0.4.2
v0.4.1
v0.4.0
v0.3.0
v0.2.0
v0.1.0
v0.0.5
v0.0.4
v0.0.3
v0.0.2
v0.0.1
Labels
Clear labels   
dependency

Dependency tree generation

  
emit

Code emitting

  
hashmapper

Anything pertaining to the HashMapper symbol mapping code

  
lebanonmapper

Anything pertaining to the LebanonMapper symbol mapping code

  
lexer

Related to the tokenizer

  
meta

Meta processor related

  
needsfix

Urgent fix required

  
parser

Parser related

  
qol

Quality-of-life related

  
question

A question, not needed fix

  
resolution

Related to the resolver

  
typing

TypeChecker and Resolver related

No Label
dependency
emit
hashmapper
lebanonmapper
lexer
meta
needsfix
parser
qol
question
resolution
typing
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No Milestone
Basics
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Dependency tree, type-checking and codegen
Assignees
Clear assignees
No Assignees
deavmi
1 Participants
Notifications
Total Time Spent: 23 hours 41 minutes
deavmi
23 hours 41 minutes
Due Date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format 'yyyy-mm-dd'.

2023-11-30

Depends on
#152 🧠️ Ideation: Loaders
tlang/tlang
You do not have permission to read 1 dependency
Reference: tlang/tlang#118
No description provided.
Delete Branch "%!s(<nil>)"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?