The encoding is 3:5 giving 3 bits for alignment (log2) and 5 bits for
size, with alignment in the 3 most significant bits. This keeps the
format backwards compatible as until doubles were added, all types were
aligned to 1 word which gets encoded as 0, and the size is unaffected.
This fixed the uninitialized temp warning in HUD.r. The problem was
caused by the flow analyzer not being able to detect that the struct
temp was being initialized by the move statement due to the address of
the temp being in a pointer temp. While it would be good to use a
constant pointer for the address of the struct temp or improving the
flow analyzer to track actual data, avoiding the temp in the first place
results in nicer code as it removes a move statement.
Only as scalars, I still need to think about what to do for vectors and
quaternions due to param size issues. Also, doubles are not yet
guaranteed to be correctly aligned.
I don't remember what the goal was (stopped working on it eight months
ago), but some possibilities include:
- better handling of nil (have trouble with assigning into struts)
- automatic forward declarations ala C# and jai (I was watching vids
about jai at the time)
- something for pascal
- simply that the default symbol type should not be var (in which case,
goal accomplished)
Currently, they can represent either vectors or quaternions, and the
quaternions can be in either [s, v] form or [w, x, y, z] form.
Many things will not actual work yet as the vector expression needs to be
converted into the appropriate form for assigning the elements to the
components of the "vector" type.
This is a nice feature found in fteqcc (also a bit of a challenge from
Spike). Getting bison to accept the new expression required rewriting the
state expression grammar, so this is mostly for the state expression. A
test to ensure the state expression doesn't break is included.
This goes towards complementing the "if not" logic extension. I need to
check if fteqcc supports "not" with "while" (the version I have access to
at the moment does not), and also whether it would be good to support
"not" with "for", and if so, what form the syntax should take.
It is syntactic sugar for if (!(foo)), but is useful for avoiding
inconsistencies between such things as if (string) and if (!string), even
though qcc can't parse if not (string). It also makes for easier to read
code when the logic in the condition is complex.
