* Rename isPPC() -> isPowerPC32().
* Rename isPPC64() -> isPowerPC64().
* Add new isPowerPC() function which covers both.
There was confusion even in the standard library about what isPPC() meant. This
change makes these functions work how I think most people actually expect them
to work, and makes them consistent with isMIPS(), isSPARC(), etc.
I chose to rename from PPC to PowerPC because 1) it's more consistent with the
other functions, and 2) it'll cause loud rather than silent breakage for anyone
who might have been depending on isPPC() while misunderstanding it.
I pointed a fuzzer at the tokenizer and it crashed immediately. Upon
inspection, I was dissatisfied with the implementation. This commit
removes several mechanisms:
* Removes the "invalid byte" compile error note.
* Dramatically simplifies tokenizer recovery by making recovery always
occur at newlines, and never otherwise.
* Removes UTF-8 validation.
* Moves some character validation logic to `std.zig.parseCharLiteral`.
Removing UTF-8 validation is a regression of #663, however, the existing
implementation was already buggy. When adding this functionality back,
it must be fuzz-tested while checking the property that it matches an
independent Unicode validation implementation on the same file. While
we're at it, fuzzing should check the other properties of that proposal,
such as no ASCII control characters existing inside the source code.
Other changes included in this commit:
* Deprecate `std.unicode.utf8Decode` and its WTF-8 counterpart. This
function has an awkward API that is too easy to misuse.
* Make `utf8Decode2` and friends use arrays as parameters, eliminating a
runtime assertion in favor of using the type system.
After this commit, the crash found by fuzzing, which was
"\x07\xd5\x80\xc3=o\xda|a\xfc{\x9a\xec\x91\xdf\x0f\\\x1a^\xbe;\x8c\xbf\xee\xea"
no longer causes a crash. However, I did not feel the need to add this
test case because the simplified logic eradicates most crashes of this
nature.
This is a fairly small hobby OS that has not seen development in 2 years. Our
current policy is that hobby OSs should use the `other` tag.
https://github.com/zhmu/ananas
What is `sparcel`, you might ask? Good question!
If you take a peek in the SPARC v8 manual, §2.2, it is quite explicit that SPARC
v8 is a big-endian architecture. No little-endian or mixed-endian support to be
found here.
On the other hand, the SPARC v9 manual, in §3.2.1.2, states that it has support
for mixed-endian operation, with big-endian mode being the default.
Ok, so `sparcel` must just be referring to SPARC v9 running in little-endian
mode, surely?
Nope:
* 40b4fd7a3e/llvm/lib/Target/Sparc/SparcTargetMachine.cpp (L226)
* 40b4fd7a3e/llvm/lib/Target/Sparc/SparcTargetMachine.cpp (L104)
So, `sparcel` in LLVM is referring to some sort of fantastical little-endian
SPARC v8 architecture. I've scoured the internet and I can find absolutely no
evidence that such a thing exists or has ever existed. In fact, I can find no
evidence that a little-endian implementation of SPARC v9 ever existed, either.
Or any SPARC version, actually!
The support was added here: https://reviews.llvm.org/D8741
Notably, there is no mention whatsoever of what CPU this might be referring to,
and no justification given for the "but some are little" comment added in the
patch.
My best guess is that this might have been some private exercise in creating a
little-endian version of SPARC that never saw the light of day. Given that SPARC
v8 explicitly doesn't support little-endian operation (let alone little-endian
instruction encoding!), and no CPU is known to be implemented as such, I think
it's very reasonable for us to just remove this support.
