lineiform VS uom

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.

uom (type-safe zero-cost dimensional analysis) v0.35.0 got released today!

It happened! v0.34.0 (crates.io) has been released.

My hope is to release uom (type-safe zero-cost dimensional analysis) v0.34.0 this week. There have been a huge number of new quantities and units added since v0.33.0.

I have been reviewing lots of PRs recently submitted to add many new units and quantities to uom (type-safe zero-cost dimensional analysis).

I reviewed some PRs to add new units to uom (type-safe zero-cost dimensional analysis) yesterday and am really hoping to make progress on logarithmic units this week. no_std support is slowing down the later.

Working on a PR to uom (type-safe zero-cost dimensional analysis) to support logarithmic units.

A great type system enables things like unit preserving calculations and Formal Methods.

Is it the error messages, or other parts of uom that make it unwieldy to use? Feedback welcome here or as a new issue.

I'm working through reviewing the open PRs for uom (type-safe zero-cost dimensional analysis).