Devlog 25 Checking Numbers Pt2
December 25, 2022
After running some proper tests on my
numbers function, I realized it’s completely flawed in more than a few ways. In this session I plan on fixing those issues.
Checking numbers pt2
Previously, I planned on only storing 29-bit numbers and reserving 3 bits for flags. The idea was to allow me to store a number as if it were a word by simply setting a 1-bit flag. However cool that may sound, in theory it wouldn’t work because a number is a literal value. It doesn’t make sense to treat it as a word - because it’s not - and why lose 3 bits just for that?
Another issue is the minus sign was being counted as a character, so the actual number’s length could not be more than 8 digits if it were negative.
Next, there was an issue when negating the 29-bit number, because
neg works on the 32-bit word, not 29-bit, so the converted negative number was actually not always correct.
Finally, I somehow forgot to set the 3-bit flag values (
001) in the number.. but anyways we’ll get rid of that by converting to a 32-bit number and leaving it at that.
The first change we’ll make is to extend the maximum token length:
- li t1, 9 # initialize temporary to 9: log10(2^29) = 8 + 1 = max 9 characters - bgtu a1, t1, number_error # if token is more than 9 characters, it's too long to be an integer + li t1, 10 # initialize temporary to 10: floor(log10(2^32)) = 9 + 1 = max 10 characters + addi t2, t1, 1 # initialize temporary to 11: max characters + 1 for minus sign + bgtu a1, t2, number_error # if token is more than 11 characters, it's too long to be an integer
Here we know that a 32-bit number can only have a maximum of 10 digits, so we store that in
t1, but we’ll need one more for the optional minus sign, so we store that in
t2. Then we change our comparison to check if the token is more than 11 characters. This seems a bit roundabout, but we’ll re-use the 10 value later as our multiplier, and our greater than bounds check.
Speaking of bounds check, we were previously using 2 instructions for that:
bltz to check if a digit is less than
bgtu to check if it’s greater than
9. I replaced them with a single instruction that uses
bgeu to perform both checks (it’s an unsigned branch check, which I also used in
- bltz t2, number_error # check if character is lower than 0, if yes then error - bgtu t2, t1, number_error # check if character is greater than 9, if yes then error + bgeu t2, t1, number_error # check if character is < 0 or >= 10
The final change was where we performed a bounds check on the number, the previous code was totally not what I expected, so I fixed it like this:
- li t1, (2^29)-1 # largest acceptable number size: 29 bits + li t1, 0xFFFFFFFF # load the largest acceptable number size: 32 bits
This is much simpler and easier to understand. That hex value is
2^32 - 1.
I guess with this new method of checking numbers, I’ll be forced to use the traditional Forth approach of enclosing a literal with
]. I didn’t really want to add those primitives in assembly, but as I mentioned in devlog 24, I feel that handling numbers correctly - natively - is quite important as opposed to writing some weird Forth code to do that.
I’m looking forward to getting back to the interpreter implementation in the next session, assuming I don’t discover more bugs in my