Hi, > A Forth system can be implemented with as little as 7 words written in
3 words, according to Frank Seargant. > assembly. This stuff is simpler to port to the next controller, or at least > less work. So the next question is: is this "keep the assembly part as > small as possible" credo important for amforth? Probably not, because it > is designed to run on "atmega" exclusively. The "atXmega" stuff has been > largely abandoned, if I remember correctly. atxmega frustate me everytime I re-start with them. The tool chain on linux is not yet ready for them. IMHO. But I do not give up, yet ;) And who knows, maybe I use the code as inspiration for something completely other controllers? I've got a few ARM's right on my desk... > So, no, apart maybe from readability of the code there is not much to say > against using more assembly. I'd agree if someone writes an optimizing cross-compiler from forth code to assembler code. Simply converting from one syntax notation to another is already done with the G4 tool. Matthias ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: Build for Windows Store. http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Amforth-devel mailing list for http://amforth.sf.net/ Amforth-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amforth-devel
