World: r3wp

The code generator can be your default code too, so code will get 
generated on the fly.

yep, i follow u

There is no reason that the generated rebcode need be in the same 
order in its block that the original code is in its context. The 
BRAB block adds a layer of indirection, making the memory virtual.

yes, i agree

If you generate it as you go along, the rebcode will be generated 
in the order that it is executed.

it's the case currently

If you keep the Z80 memory in a binary! and make changes to it, whenever 
code at an offset already covered by the BRAB block is modified you 
would change that offset in the BRAB block to the default and mark 
the associated section of the rebcode as free. That way the next 
time you branch to that offset it would retranslate the Z80 to rebcode 
and put that rebcode in the first free spot big enough. You could 
even break up your code into blocks of around the same size and branch 
between them, to reduce fragmentation.

hmmm

You will likely have some rebcode that corresponds to the same areas 
of Z80 memory more than once, but memory is cheap on every platform 
REBOL runs on, particularly compared to a Z80.

You can have all of your generated code segments be added as snippets 
of the same length if you wrap them in a block surrounded by the 
same code. For that matter, only that code block would need to be 
changed when changing the generated rebcode. You could even handle 
the freelist with ease by swapping marker code into free areas.

That would handle fragmentation issues in your generated code block 
with ease.

and if i include my snipset in conditionnal block s, i will not have 
to recalculate offset of segments ?

or into a loop 1 block! ?

all snipsets will have the same relative offset

Or an ift block! where the t value would be set by freelist settings 
or something.

yep

it could be usefull to interrupt the execution at any point

after a break point for example

If you fill in the whole rebcode block with code snippets of fixed 
length and then just swap in the code blocks you want, you wouldn't 
even need to alter the BRAB block - you could just change the code 
block references. For that matter, multiple references to the same 
code block could be just that, rather than copies, saving memory.

The main code block could be generated too, and all of your Z80 rebcode 
could be generated, and you could do the assembly yourself during 
the generation using code based on the standard assembler.

hmmm

The important part to duplicate from the assembler is the binding 
code. You won't have to duplicate the label fixup code, as you will 
be doing your own fixups. You might want to use label statements 
as markers for your own purposes though.

yep

If you go with the fixed main code block prefilled with snippets, 
the unchanging length of that block would lend stability to the rebcode 
interpreter. REBOL tends to crash if modifications to code that it 
is running at the time increase the length of the code block enough 
to force a reallocation of that block.

ok , noted

ok, noted

If you have each snippet be just this:
    IFT []
    BRA top

then the size of the main code block could be minimized, and the 
state of the T flag at the beginning of each snippet could control 
conditional execution.

if think i will choose this option

Then, you would just change the reference to the block to be something 
else when you fill in the snippet.

All of the infrastructure code would be at the top of the main code 
block, and the code that gets called every time before the BRAB would 
be after a LABEL top statement. Any calculations that affect the 
pc would go in the generated rebcode blocks.

You would use the built-in assembler to fixup the top references 
at the end of every code snippet to the proper offsets.

This approach would end up with the size of your generated interpreter 
adding up to one 64k element block for the BRAB target block, one 
main block of 64k*4 + (some fixed number for overhead code) elements, 
and the size of any rebcode blocks generated from Z80 code between 
branches. Your source would be much smaller, or course.

Well, that's all I have time for right now. I hope I helped!

many thanks

Question Steeve, if you parse the Z80 opcode to produce rebcode, 
how do you handle Self Modifying Code  opcode, for example this one 
which is used to save a and restore it later :
   ld (Restore + 1), a
   .. (Do some stuff)
   Restore:	ld  a, 12h

This sample is a common optimization technic used in the 80's

yeah yeah, that is not a problem anymore, i changed my way, now with 
rebcode i do pure emulation.

soon i will post a proto

peut-être que cela te serait utile :
; Patch to rebcode assembler

; - Add setl opcode -> setl: ["Set variable to label offset (0 based 
offset)" word! word!]
; - very usefull to call sub routine

system/internal/rebcode*: make system/internal/rebcode* [
    fix-bl: func [block /local labels here label][
	    labels: make block! 16 
	    block-action: :fix-bl 
	    if debug? [print "=== Fixing binding and labels... ==="] 
	    parse block [
	        some [
	            here: 
	            subblock-rule (here/1: bind here/1 words) 
	            | 

             'label word! (here/1: bind here/1 words insert insert tail labels 
             here/2 index? here) 
                |
                'setl word! word!
	            | 
	            opcode-rule (here/1: bind here/1 words) 
	            | 
                skip (print "LA" error here)
	        ]
	    ] 
	    parse block [
	        some [
	            here: 
	            ['bra word! | 'brat word! | 'braf word!] (
	                fix-label labels at here 2 here 0
	            ) 
	            | 
	            'brab into [some word!] word! (
	                label: here/2 
	                forall label [
	                    fix-label labels label here -1
	                ]
	            ) 
	            | 
	            'brab word! word! (
	                fix-label labels at here 2 here -1
	            ) 
	            |
	            'setl word! word! (
	            	here/1: 'set
	            	here/1: bind here/1 words
	            	here/3: -1 + any [
	            		select labels to word! here/3

               error/with here join "Missing label '" [here/3 ":"]
            		]
	            )
	            | 
	            opcode-rule 
	            | 
                skip (print "ICI" error here)
	        ]
	    ]
    ]
	system/internal/assemble: func [
	    "REBCODE Assembler" 
	    body 
	    /local frame here do-blks labels tmp rule
	][
	    body: second :body 
	    fix-bl body
	]
]

Usefull to call sub routine :
test: rebcode [
	i [integer!]
	/local ret-ofs begin
][
label begin
	brab [lab-1 lab-2] i

label lab-1
	print "call from lab-1"
	setl ret-ofs ret-1
	bra sub
label ret-1
	print "returned to ret-1"
	exit

label lab-2
	print "call from lab-2"
	setl ret-ofs ret-2
	bra sub
label ret-2
	print "returned to ret-2"
	exit

label sub
	print "pass thru sub"
	brab begin ret-ofs
]

>> test 0
call from lab-1
pass thru sub
returned to ret-1
>> test 1
call from lab-2
pass thru sub
returned to ret-2
>>

hum, i'm not sure of  the utility of your code. Currently,  the development 
of the Z80 virtual machine is achieved and is very simple.

label Start

xcv

label start
pickz op-code memory adress
brab [          ;list of opcode
	...
             ...
             LD_A_B
            ... 
] op-code
label LD_A_B set.i _a _b bra start

the new rebcode version, is several times faster than the old, i'm 
happy !,  and I did not convert the video emulation into rebcode 
yet  , so ,   I think that we will be able to play in a screen much 
larger while keeping fluidity.

i could share my work, is the Altme Filesharing  working ? i think 
not

A direct interpreter, or I guess a tokenized interpreter using the 
original opcodes as tokens, which amounts to the same thing. Interesting. 
I suppose that would be simplest way to do it, and a threaded interpreter 
would be a little hard in rebcode because of the relative branches. 
Good job!

I notice that your example doesn't adjust the program counter - I 
assume that these adjustments are performed by your real code.

yeah it was a sample, my code is a little more complex

Your new version also deals with the too-many-words backwards-compatibility 
problem that the old approach had, by just having words for opcodes 
rather than addresses. It should also have much less memory overhead 
than my compiled suggestion, and not require generating the rebcode 
of the interpreter - it is probably hand-codeable.