Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| [2 earlier articles] |
| Re: Language Design sinu.nayak2001@gmail.com (Srinivas Nayak) (2011-07-18) |
| Re: Language Design anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2011-07-19) |
| Re: Language Design zwinkau@kit.edu (Andreas Zwinkau) (2011-07-20) |
| Re: Language Design acolvin@efunct.com (mac) (2011-07-23) |
| Re: Language Design christophe.de.dinechin@gmail.com (Christophe de Dinechin) (2011-07-23) |
| Re: Language Design osesov@gmail.com (Oleg Sesov) (2011-07-23) |
| Re: Language Design gene.ressler@gmail.com (Gene) (2011-07-26) |
| Re: Language Design thomas.mertes@gmx.at (tm) (2011-07-27) |
| Re: Language Design usenet@rwaltman.com (Roberto Waltman) (2011-07-28) |
| Re: Language Design s_dubrovich@yahoo.com (s_dubrovich@yahoo.com) (2011-08-04) |
| Re: Language Design torbenm@diku.dk (2011-08-08) |
| Language design David.Chase@Eng.Sun.COM (1991-09-04) |
| From: | Gene <gene.ressler@gmail.com> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:28:18 -0700 (PDT) |
| Organization: | Compilers Central |
| References: | 11-07-027 |
| Keywords: | design |
| Posted-Date: | 27 Jul 2011 16:49:12 EDT |
On Jul 18, 4:16 pm, Billy Mays
<81282ed9a88799d21e77957df2d84bd6514d9...@myhashismyemail.com> wrote:
> I am trying to design a programming language for a simple processor
> (16 bit, ~10 instructions, 16 registers). I am not sure what a
> language actually needs in order to be more useful than pure assembly,
> but is also reasonable to implement. ...
> --
> Bill
> [Rather than trying to invent yet another language, I'd retarget some
>existing 16 bit C compiler. -John]
The old Turbo Pascal 2.0 dialect was pretty remarkable. There was a
version for Z80 (CP/M) and 8086 (MSDOS). I think the whole compiler
was only 50K or so. The runtime was tiny (as it had to be), yet
included floating point (6-byte proprietary), variable-length strings
(up to 255 chars, not ANSI standard), sets over domains up to 255 in
cardinality, primitive extensions to write memory and I/O ports,
graphics (x86 only), an overlay system that was good enough to handle
a 200K SLOC program for on the Z80, and probably some other stuff I'm
foregetting. All this is to say that you could a lot worse than to re-
implement this dialect of Pascal as well as it was in this case.
Pascal is also straightforward to compile, especially if you don't
allow nested functions/procedures (although Turbo did).
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.