Hi Kashyap,
> I can see how you would have to end up writing the whole thing in assembly
> - in the example you shared. Would it be right to say that its only the
> carry flag that you need or is it just an example and there are other flags
> too?
Pil64 used three flags (zero, sign and carry). CP
Thanks for the clear explanation Alex,
Just to give some background - I've been working on the attempt to port
miniPicoLisp to windows (more like making vanilla C as the only
dependency). I wanted to make sure that I understood the cost of not going
with assembly. Since I use https://github.com/lib
On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 08:13:00AM -0700, C K Kashyap wrote:
> Just to give some background - I've been working on the attempt to port
> miniPicoLisp to windows (more like making vanilla C as the only
> dependency).
Good, but isn't miniPicoLisp plan vanilla C anyway? I think it uses only stdio
lib
> Good, but isn't miniPicoLisp plan vanilla C anyway? I think it uses only
> stdio
> library functions.
>
Thanks :Alex :) ... almost Vanilla C I think - with some gcc toppings (VLA
particularly) ;) I also moved away from pointer tagging in favor of an
extra "part" in the cell. This takes away any
I haven't been following this thread terribly closely, so I hope this question
isn't off-base.
Is there a version of picolisp that runs on 80386/80486/80586 'bare metal' (or
at least 'bare VM') -- talking directly to a HW serial port and reading from a
FAT file system?
-Original Message-
This may be of interest to you Henry - https://picolisp.com/wiki/?PilOS
On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 4:42 PM Henry Baker wrote:
> I haven't been following this thread terribly closely, so I hope this
> question isn't off-base.
>
> Is there a version of picolisp that runs on 80386/80486/80586 'bare me
