A little note on the history.
Chris Pressey
4 years ago
24 | 24 | |
25 | 25 | The intent is not to make it absolutely impossible to make such errors, |
26 | 26 | just harder. |
27 | ||
28 | ### Some Background ### | |
29 | ||
30 | The ideas in SixtyPical came from a couple of places. | |
31 | ||
32 | One major impetus was when I was working on [Shelta][], trying to cram | |
33 | all that code for that compiler into 512 bytes. This involved looking | |
34 | at the x86 registers and thinking hard about which ones were preserved | |
35 | when (and which ones weren't) and making the best use of that. And | |
36 | while doing that, one thing that came to mind was: I Bet The Assembler | |
37 | Could Track This. | |
38 | ||
39 | Another influence was around 2007 when "Typed Assembly Language" (and | |
40 | "Proof Carrying Code") were all the rage. I haven't heard about them | |
41 | in a while, so I guess they turned out to be research fads? But for a | |
42 | while there, it was all Necula, Necula, Necula. Anyway, I remember at | |
43 | the time looking into TAL and expecting to find something that matched | |
44 | the impression I had pre-formulated about what a "Typed Assembly" | |
45 | might be like. And finding that it didn't match my vision very well. | |
46 | ||
47 | I don't actually remember what TAL seemed like to me at the time, but | |
48 | what I had in mind was more like SixtyPical. | |
49 | ||
50 | (I'll also write something about abstract interpretation here at some | |
51 | point, hopefully.) |