home .. forth .. misc mail list archive ..

Re: SHARC


vic plichota writes:
 > No, it is not.  If you don't believe me, then try it sometime, and
 > you'll see what I mean...  it can be done, but it's a bitch -- fussy
 > and complicated.
 
That's too bad. Do you have any source left from your attempts? The
thing needs not to be efficient, all I need is a simple way to compile 
Forth into SHARC assembly, with inline assembler capability. 
 
 > >(Due to it's limited on-die memory
 > 
 > Bullshit -- even the cheapest SHARC variant is blessed with copious
 > on-chip RAM -- at least for my purposes.

Well, copious is relative. There is certainly not enough space to run
a big fat bloated thing like a Unix-type kernel (unless we consider
QNX or Fiasco) in 4 MBits, and then there is the small matter of
having the data for the physical simulation, which is not very small.
 
 > RTFM   - vic

It is much more cost-effective to ask a professional who has actually
done development on such thing. So you're not very fond of SHARCs, are 
you?