Re: Assembler or machinecode.

Thats a neat idea :)

On Apr 9, 2005 1:36 PM, Robert Patten <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dr Nick Maroudas wrote:
> 
> > On Apr 8, 2005 07:43 PM, Chris Walton wrote:
> >
> > You know, bootsectors etc. can be written in forth if
> > you compile16-bit code (one block different) and just
> > insert a hard jump
> >
> >
> > On Apr 8, 08:08 PM,  Terry Loveall wrote:
> >
> > While porting 4word to linux I encountered the above
> > problem of inline opcode compilation without comments.
> > (snip)
> > Rather than putting together a sub-set of an assembler,
> > I just commented the new inline opcodes with their Intel
> > memnonics. Maximum efficiency of size and readability.
> >
> > Old 16-bit definition:
> > macro : 2*    [ $ e0d166 L ] 3, ] ;
> >
> > New 32-bit definition:
> > macro : 2*    [ $ e0d1 L ( shl eax,1) ] w, ] ;
> >
> > The really tough discipline is keeping the comments up
> > to date...
> > Regards,
> > Terry Loveall
> >
> If   we put an assembler into colorForth  it should be an
> edit time aid  that is an extension of the editor.
> As yellow assembler words are executed they are inserted
> at the edit cursor as comments with the   machine code.
> 
> Entering:
> : 2*    [ shl eax,1] ;
> would appear as:
> : 2*    [ $ e0d1 L ( shl eax,1) ] w,  ;
> in the source.
> 
> The  assembler is optional in the editor  and is not needed at load time.
> The assembler is just  a programming aid and not need if implemented
> this way.
> 
> Robert
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> Main web page - http://www.colorforth.com
> 
> 


-- 
Chris Walton
arke on irc.freenode.net