Skip to content
Find file
Fetching contributors…
Cannot retrieve contributors at this time
70 lines (54 sloc) 2.78 KB


Short Term

  • Flesh out design docs where needed
    Input from HLL authors very welcome!
  • But don't get caught up designing things we aren't implementing
  • Decide on some coding standards (package names, etc)
  • Build framework: Makefile, test harness, etc
  • Sketch (design and/or code) out lowest level compiler

src/disasm.winxed contains the beginnings of a PBC -> PACT disassembler. The next steps for that are:

  • Extract Packfile class
  • Setup infrastructure to build said class.
  • Setup test to test said class

Long Term

One of the main motivations of PACT is generating bytecode. Instead of starting at the top and trying to ensure we keep everything we'll need around, starting from the bytecode and working our way up seems far more useful. The implementation plan looks a little like this:

  • Build a set of classes that mirror packfile layout.
    • Populated with PACT classes like Sub, Op, etc instead of PackfileConstantTable, etc
  • Make that able to produce bytecode and PIR
    • Register allocation
    • Stage structure
  • Build assembly language on top of that
    • assembler and disassembler
  • Add control-flow graph primitives (basic blocks linked by conditionals)
  • Build tree-like POST
  • Build PAST

Share as much across layers as possible. (We want only one implementation/type for things like registers, variables, symbol tables, location information, etc.)

Maintain as much type information as possible. If we start off with an integer constant, remember that all the way down to the bytecode.

After that, start building top-down. Add features to PAST and see if any additional POST/CFG/bytecode features are needed to support it.


Both as a sanity check and as a kind of textual IR, it would be extremely useful to build extremely simple languages on top of several layers of PACT.

An assembly-esque language directly on top of our bytecode support classes allows for easy introspection of the output of the compiler. In addition, once a PACT assembly format stabilizes, it would be possible (and likely encouraged) to create a version of the assembler in C to function as a replacement for PIR/IMCC as the de facto standard for bootstrapping.

An extended assembly language on top of the opcode tree format would be easier for human production and let them use the same standard shortcuts the compiler tends to. Alternatively, this could be a viable target for a system-level language like Winxed.

A full language that exposes the high level AST as directly as possible is an excellent tool for testing new features and showing an example for new implementers. Ideally there will be many languages at this level, so an official in-core language is less vital but having some language use it as it is being developed will be key to creating a sane API.

Jump to Line
Something went wrong with that request. Please try again.