Currently exploring the design of a native code generator for ForgeVM.

This is a modular, scalable code generator for ForgeVM, focusing on direct translation from a high-level representation (AST → IR) to native assembly or machine code for x86-64 and ARM64.

Part 1: Abstract Architecture Overview

           [ Source Code (Any Language) ]
                        ↓
          [ ForgeVM Frontend Parser & AST Builder ]
                        ↓
          [ ForgeVM Intermediate Representation (IR) ]
                        ↓
       ┌────────────┬────────────┬────────────┐
       │   x86_64   │   ARM64    │   RISC-V   │   ← Backends
       └────────────┴────────────┴────────────┘
                        ↓
          [ Assembly or Raw Machine Code ]
                        ↓
                [ Executable / Binary ]

You skip the virtual machine and intermediate bytecode, and directly generate native code via IR → backend.

Part 2: Designing ForgeVM Intermediate Representation (IR)

This is a minimal and portable abstraction of instructions, general enough to represent logic across all CPUs.

Goals:

• Easy to parse and serialize (JSON or binary)

• Directly translatable to native CPU instructions

• Not Turing-complete, only representable actions (no loops or conditions unless explicitly encoded)

IR Instruction Format (JSON Example):

xxxxxxxxxx
[
  { "op": "mov", "dest": "r1", "value": 42 },
  { "op": "mov", "dest": "r2", "value": 10 },
  { "op": "add", "dest": "r1", "src": "r2" },
  { "op": "call", "func": "print", "args": ["r1"] },
  { "op": "ret" }
]

Supported Instructions in Phase 1:

Part 3: Backend Design – x86-64 Code Generator

Register Mapping:

IR to Assembly Translation:

Output:

​x
section .text
global _start

_start:
    mov rax, 42
    mov rbx, 10
    add rax, rbx
    call print
    ret

Assembling:

• Use nasm or gas to assemble this into an executable

• Or link with C runtime if using main: entry

Part 4: Backend Design – ARM64 Code Generator

Register Mapping:

IR to Assembly Translation:

Output:

xxxxxxxxxx
.global _start

_start:
    mov x0, #42
    mov x1, #10
    add x0, x0, x1
    bl print
    ret

Part 5: Code Emission Approaches

Option 1: Emit Text-Based Assembly

• Output .s file

• Assemble with:

  • nasm for x86_64

  • as or clang -c for ARM64

• Link with ld or clang

Option 2: Emit Machine Code Directly

• Use libraries:

  • AsmJit (for x86)

  • Keystone (multi-arch assembler)

  • DynASM

Option 3: Emit In-Memory Executable Code

• For a JIT-style design, allocate RWX memory, write machine code, and execute it

• On Linux: mmap + mprotect

• On Windows: VirtualAlloc

Part 6: Minimal C++ Code Generator Skeleton

xxxxxxxxxx
void generate_x86(const IRProgram& program, std::ostream& out) {
    out << "section .text\n";
    out << "global _start\n\n";
    out << "_start:\n";

    for (auto& instr : program.instructions) {
        if (instr.op == "mov") {
            out << "    mov rax, " << instr.value << "\n";
        } else if (instr.op == "add") {
            out << "    add rax, rbx\n";
        } else if (instr.op == "ret") {
            out << "    ret\n";
        }
    }
}

Part 7: Future Directions

Add Support For:

• Conditional branches: cmp, jmp, je, etc.

• Function calls & stack frame layout

• Calling convention support (System V ABI on Linux, Windows x64 ABI)

• Register allocation algorithm

• Live variable analysis for optimization

Static Analysis Integration

• Ensure instructions do not break calling conventions

• Analyze for register clobbering or invalid instructions

Optional: ForgeVM CLI Tool

Example usage:

xxxxxxxxxx
forgevmc -arch x86 -in prog.ir -out prog.s
nasm -f elf64 prog.s -o prog.o
ld prog.o -o prog.out

Bonus: Use Existing Libraries

Summary

Your ForgeVM code generator:

• Accepts high-level source or IR

• Targets native code directly (x86-64, ARM64)

• Avoids bytecode completely

• Enables modular backend expansion

• Long-term: can evolve into an optimizing native compiler

When You Don't Need an IR

You can skip the IR entirely and go straight from the AST (Abstract Syntax Tree) or even the parser output directly to native code (assembly or machine code). This approach is called direct code generation.

Valid Use Cases:

1. Tiny Language / DSL (Domain-Specific Language)

   • If you're designing a small language (e.g., configuration language, scripting for a game engine), you can generate native code directly from syntax trees.

   • No complex transformations or optimizations are needed.

2. Educational Compilers

   • In tutorials or university projects, IR may be unnecessary. Teaching can focus on the basics of parsing and code generation.

3. 1:1 Language Translation (Source-to-Source)

   • Translators that map language A to language B (e.g., transpiling Pascal to C++) may not need an IR if the grammar and semantics align well.

4. Extremely Simple VMs

   • If you're writing a VM that executes instructions directly from a high-level language like Lisp or BASIC, you might interpret the AST or token stream directly.

5. Special-Purpose Ahead-of-Time Compilers

   • If you compile only a small subset of a language, or compile fixed templates (e.g., SQL query compilers), you can emit machine code directly.

What You Lose by Skipping IR

1. No Cross-Architecture Abstraction

   • Without IR, you must generate a new backend for every CPU architecture directly from the AST or parser. That makes multi-targeting harder.

2. Limited Optimizations

   • You lose a centralized phase where optimizations like dead-code elimination, constant folding, inlining, or register allocation could happen.

3. Difficult to Reuse Logic Across Architectures

   • If you want to support both x86 and ARM, it’s harder without a neutral IR between the parser and the backend.

4. Less Debugging Flexibility

   • You cannot inspect or analyze intermediate steps, which hurts debugging and testing.

When It's Worth Skipping IR

Example

Let’s say you have a very small scripting language:

xxxxxxxxxx
print(1 + 2)

You can generate x86-64 directly:

xxxxxxxxxx
mov rax, 1
add rax, 2
call print
ret

You don’t need to convert 1 + 2 into IR like:

xxxxxxxxxx
{ "op": "add", "src1": "const 1", "src2": "const 2" }

Just generate the machine code or assembly on the fly.

Conclusion

You can skip IR if:

• Your language is small, simple, or static.

• You are targeting only one platform.

• You don’t need cross-architecture support or aggressive optimizations.

But for large, portable, or optimized languages, an IR is strongly recommended.