Re: a compembler for x86 that looks nearly portable

"R. L. Watkins" <RLWatkins@CompuServe.Com> wrote in message news:02-01-043...
> 1) Interesting. Sounds a bit like 'B' w/ built-in system calls.
>


Thanks so much.
B was where Ken Thompson almost independantly designed Forth,
from what I see on Ritchie's webpage. It was a threaded-code
interpreter, and I think it had a parameter stack _internally_.
osimplay's "entrance" routine frames are a parameter stack in
Flatland, i.e on the one return stack, and strongly resemble
what the BCPL compiler does vis-a-vis copy-on-write parameter
passing, except that in osimplay you do it by hand.


I remain lower-level than BCPL or Forth in that I don't do
the usual flow-control abstractions, which BCPL was quite
enthused about.


The point I personally want to repeat in groups such as this
is that the 386 might be a superset of a useful portable
virtual machine. If you look at osimplay source, the 386-ness
is not often evident.


Rick Hohensee
rickh@capaccess.org

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.