On Mar 12, 3:20 pm, John Passaniti <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> I can certainly see that not all Forth code could be compiled. But I
> can also see GCC sup****ting a very large subset of Forth that bundles in
> an interpreter for any dynamic, run-time code.
> I also question how much actual Forth code used in embedded systems
> relies on dynamic features. Many Forth environments I've used over the
> years allow the creation of headless Forths that no longer have a
> dictionary or an inner interpreter. Those kinds of applications (which
> I suspect are the majority) are exactly the kinds of applications that
> might benefit from a GCC that sup****ted Forth.
Ah, so a GCC stack-machine compiler that sup****ts a compatible subset
of Forth-94, for which a full Forth-94 implementation, such as gforth,
could play the role of cross-compiler.
|
