indicatif VS lineiform

You'd want to build it yourself using a mixture of something like inquire or dialoguer and a spinner library like the one I linked or indicatif.

This appears to clear the screen. Users don't really like this :( Instead I'd use a library to update the progress, maybe https://github.com/console-rs/indicatif ?

This uses rand and xcomplex to handle the mathematics, png to write image files, and dialoguer and indicatif for some pretty prompts and progress bars.

It's pretty much WIP at this point. Currently trying to use indicatif to add nice and fancy progress bars. I'm having some struggles with it but slowly getting there and the overall process is pretty fun 😌

surprised not to see fzf

also someone showed https://github.com/console-rs/indicatif/ recently (a tqdm like progress bar)

These are just release notes, but the actual readme does have those: https://github.com/console-rs/indicatif. And lots of examples in the repo :).

Sounds similar to lineiform. Which isn't all that stable or actively developed, but it is a cute approach to writing a meta-jit in rust. It's a weird approach, but IMO it's worth more experimentation.

Working on Lineiform, my meta-JIT library, some more.

In response to Cranelift, switching to my own Tangle IR won't be using Cranelift at all (it uses raw dynasm-rs for emitting instructions). I go into a bit in https://github.com/chc4/lineiform/issues/19, but Cranelift specifically has some rules about iflags, the type they use to conceptualize processor flags effects (e.g. add's carryout or overflow). You can only have one iflags value live at a time, and it can't overlap with any other math operation. This is a problem because the x86 we're lifting doesn't always follow that rule, so if we just emit Cranelift as we go it will panic and say we built an invalid function.

I go into a bit in https://github.com/chc4/lineiform/issues/19, but it's less a problem with its optimizer and more a problem with its IR constraints. Cranelift specifically has some rules about `iflags`, the type they use to conceptualize processor flags effects (e.g. add's carryout or overflow). You can only have one `iflags` value live at a time, and it can't overlap with any other math operation. This is a problem because the x86 we're lifting doesn't always follow that rule, so if we just emit Cranelift as we go it will panic and say we built an invalid function.

The iflags design in general is kinda awkward too, and was being rethought a few months ago when I was first getting this working; I think they're planning on redesigning the add carryout interface and things to be slightly more streamlined. I suspect that any redesigned interface will have similar problems with mismatch between what I want from Cranelift and what 90% of other uses of Cranelfit want, though, and so I decided to just make my own IR instead.

Working on the codegen backend for Lineiform again. I sketched out a plan on how to implement register allocation in a way that hopefully doesn't have horrible behavior in the majority of cases, and implemented ~half of it last week, and hopefully I'll implement the other half and instruction scheduling this week.

Yup, https://github.com/chc4/lineiform. It's not usable at all yet - I was building it on top of Cranelift, which turned out to be a fairly bad idea, so I'm going to have to essentially rewrite all of it with my own codegen backend I think. I've been hacking on it on and off but it's been much slower progress due to work (and writing a codegen backend is hard...)

I got struck by either a very dumb or very good idea a few days ago, and finally have a working (minimal) proof-of-concept for it: Lineiform is a meta-JIT library to nearly automatically get an optimizing method JIT from a Rust interpreter. It does dynamic recompilation on closures by lifting from x86 to Cranelift IR for runtime function inlining and constant propagation.