[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: You missed my later work

From: Jeremiah
Subject: Re: You missed my later work
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 19:17:50 -0400

> Aah, okay.  That' smart.  I got questions why I did not start with forth
> or brainfuck.

Well now you could have told them we already had the forth
but none of the people in the forth community bothered to build upon it

> ...however, for the bootstrap problem we need [almost] a full C
> compiler, enough to compile ....

Nope, we just needed to get more creative.
I could hand assemble a C compiler like

in assembly with a couple months of effort but the key is not to keep
trying to take huge steps but rather simple ones.

For example break up the C compiler problem into pieces, for example
have a seperate C preprocessor, a single file C compiler that only
produces assembly and just leverage the already existing assembly
infrastructure I already made.

> On the one hand that would be a very simple bootstrap setup.  On the
> other hand this still leaves us with a fairly big bootstrap binary.
> Possibly using your work as a front end to this removes that issue?

I honestly feel that is absolutely something that has to be done.
However, you'll have to constrain yourself to what language features in
C that you use to make the path from what I have completed to what is
required possible.

Some questions I have are as follows:
1) Could the C preprocessor componet of Nyacc be isolated and simplified
enough to run on stage0's lisp interpreter and solve the C preprocessor

2) is cc500 or C in 4 functions good enough to bootstrap mescc or do we
need to extend on of them or find/make a different C compiler that could
be compiled by one of them which could get the job done?

3) has anyone looked at stripping tcc down to only using integers,
structs, bytes and strings and outputting assembly instead of a binary?

4) or have we become too focused on getting C working that we missed
implementing another language (perhaps PL/0 or algol w) might end up
saving us a bunch of work?

5) Are there any languages for which it would be easier to implement C
than assembly or simpler than trying to parse C in S-expressions?

6) Are there any primitives I could implement into my Lisp that would
make C parsing trivial?

7) What else could I be missing about this problem?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]