Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #1049 > unrolled thread

Forth on the Maximite

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  Forth on the Maximite Andrew Reid <andrewreid69@gmail.com> - 2011-04-07 12:47 -0700
    Re: Forth on the Maximite Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-07 13:21 -0700
      Re: Forth on the Maximite Bluebee <visualforth@rocketmail.com> - 2011-04-10 20:32 -0700
        Re: Forth on the Maximite rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-04-11 08:13 -0700
          Re: Forth on the Maximite anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-04-11 15:37 +0000
            Re: Forth on the Maximite Bluebee <visualforth@rocketmail.com> - 2011-04-11 14:00 -0700
              Re: Forth on the Maximite rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-04-11 15:42 -0700
                Re: Forth on the Maximite Bluebee <visualforth@rocketmail.com> - 2011-04-11 21:35 -0700
              Re: Forth on the Maximite anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-04-12 11:20 +0000
                Re: Forth on the Maximite Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-04-12 18:07 +0200
          Re: Forth on the Maximite Bluebee <visualforth@rocketmail.com> - 2011-04-11 11:48 -0700
        Re: Forth on the Maximite Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-12 00:17 -0700
          Re: Forth on the Maximite Bluebee <visualforth@rocketmail.com> - 2011-04-12 10:19 -0700
            Re: Forth on the Maximite Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-16 12:50 -0700
              Re: Forth on the Maximite Bluebee <visualforth@rocketmail.com> - 2011-04-16 15:05 -0700
                Re: Forth on the Maximite rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-04-16 15:34 -0700
                  Re: Forth on the Maximite Bluebee <visualforth@rocketmail.com> - 2011-04-16 16:37 -0700
                    Re: Forth on the Maximite rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-04-16 16:55 -0700
                      Re: Forth on the Maximite Bluebee <visualforth@rocketmail.com> - 2011-04-16 17:41 -0700
                        Re: Forth on the Maximite rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-04-17 14:38 -0700
                          Re: Forth on the Maximite Bluebee <visualforth@rocketmail.com> - 2011-04-17 21:08 -0700
                    Re: Forth on the Maximite kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk - 2011-04-17 14:14 -0500
                      Re: Forth on the Maximite Bluebee <visualforth@rocketmail.com> - 2011-04-17 14:08 -0700
                        Re: Forth on the Maximite kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk - 2011-04-18 04:00 -0500
        Re: Forth on the Maximite Chris Baird <abuse@brushtail.apana.org.au> - 2011-04-16 20:12 +1000
          Re: Forth on the Maximite rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-04-16 15:36 -0700
            Re: Forth on the Maximite Bluebee <visualforth@rocketmail.com> - 2011-04-16 17:06 -0700
              Re: Forth on the Maximite rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-04-17 14:15 -0700
                Re: Forth on the Maximite Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-04-18 18:12 +0000
                  Re: Forth on the Maximite Bluebee <visualforth@rocketmail.com> - 2011-04-18 11:15 -0700
                  Re: Forth on the Maximite rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-04-18 21:44 -0700
                    Re: Forth on the Maximite Bluebee <visualforth@rocketmail.com> - 2011-04-19 00:23 -0700
                      Re: Forth on the Maximite rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-04-19 07:23 -0700
                        Re: Forth on the Maximite Bluebee <visualforth@rocketmail.com> - 2011-04-19 10:24 -0700
                          Re: Forth on the Maximite rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-04-19 12:22 -0700
                            Re: Forth on the Maximite Bluebee <visualforth@rocketmail.com> - 2011-04-19 16:14 -0700
                              Re: Forth on the Maximite rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-04-20 00:08 -0700
                                Re: Forth on the Maximite stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2011-04-20 10:46 +0000
                                  Re: Forth on the Maximite Bluebee <visualforth@rocketmail.com> - 2011-04-20 14:55 -0700
                                Re: Forth on the Maximite Bluebee <visualforth@rocketmail.com> - 2011-04-21 20:24 -0700
                                  Re: Forth on the Maximite BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-21 21:02 -0700
                                    Re: Forth on the Maximite Bluebee <visualforth@rocketmail.com> - 2011-04-21 23:09 -0700
                                      Re: Forth on the Maximite "David N. Williams" <williams@umich.edu> - 2011-04-22 08:42 -0400
                                      Re: Forth on the Maximite BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-22 07:06 -0700
                                        Re: Forth on the Maximite Bluebee <visualforth@rocketmail.com> - 2011-04-22 12:18 -0700
                              Re: Forth on the Maximite Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-04-20 04:07 -0500
                    Re: Forth on the Maximite Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-04-19 19:05 +0000
                  Re: Forth on the Maximite Micke <oh2aun@gmail.com> - 2011-04-19 12:00 -0700
          Re: Forth on the Maximite Bluebee <visualforth@rocketmail.com> - 2011-04-16 15:52 -0700
            Re: Forth on the Maximite Chris Baird <abuse@brushtail.apana.org.au> - 2011-04-17 23:01 +1000
        Re: Forth on the Maximite Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-04-21 19:52 -0700
      Re: Forth on the Maximite Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-04-10 21:58 -0700

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#1397

On Apr 21, 11:24 pm, Bluebee <visualfo...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> That's why I started "Renaissance of Forth" - asking for the ability
> to use C inside Forth.

> Using  C inside Forth would give the ability to use just these
> provided drivers for their peripherals written in C.

> I still believe it is possible to use drivers written in C by Forth.
> May be special methods have to be used to make this possible.

I believe that is what several people have referred to already:
* compile the C driver into a binary you can call
* call the C driver from inside Forth

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1402

On 22 Apr., 00:02, BruceMcF <agil...@netscape.net> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 11:24 pm, Bluebee <visualfo...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That's why I started "Renaissance of Forth" - asking for the ability
> > to use C inside Forth.
> > Using  C inside Forth would give the ability to use just these
> > provided drivers for their peripherals written in C.
> > I still believe it is possible to use drivers written in C by Forth.
> > May be special methods have to be used to make this possible.
>
> I believe that is what several people have referred to already:
> * compile the C driver into a binary you can call
> * call the C driver from inside Forth

Thanks, Bruce!

That's just what I thought should be possible.
That's what I did with my already tested and used machine programs
when I started with RSC-Forth.
It is not needed to start the C compiler with Forth.
Mr. Rickman will be glad to read that he can use all these drivers
written in C, by compiling them and calling the binaries from Forth,
and I am glad, that this problem is solved.

Are there any tutorials available how to find the calling addresses?

Thanks again,
Dirk.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1411

On 4/22/11 2:09 AM, Bluebee wrote:
 > On 22 Apr., 00:02, BruceMcF<agil...@netscape.net>  wrote:
 >> On Apr 21, 11:24 pm, Bluebee<visualfo...@rocketmail.com>  wrote:
 >>
 >>> That's why I started "Renaissance of Forth" - asking for the ability
 >>> to use C inside Forth.
 >>> Using  C inside Forth would give the ability to use just these
 >>> provided drivers for their peripherals written in C.
 >>> I still believe it is possible to use drivers written in C by Forth.
 >>> May be special methods have to be used to make this possible.
 >>
 >> I believe that is what several people have referred to already:
 >> * compile the C driver into a binary you can call
 >> * call the C driver from inside Forth
 >
 > Thanks, Bruce!
 >
 > That's just what I thought should be possible.
 > That's what I did with my already tested and used machine programs
 > when I started with RSC-Forth.
 > It is not needed to start the C compiler with Forth.
 > Mr. Rickman will be glad to read that he can use all these drivers
 > written in C, by compiling them and calling the binaries from Forth,
 > and I am glad, that this problem is solved.
 >
 > Are there any tutorials available how to find the calling addresses?

Gforth finds the calling addresses for you:

http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/gforth/Docs-html/C-Interface.html

The gforth system was already mentioned -- I'll just add that
I'm using it a lot right now, and find it both effective and
fast.

Of the four systems that I'm familiar with, gforth's seems the
most like what you asked for, a way embedding of C source in
Forth source.

With iForth and kForth, you have interfaces for calling external
C libraries, without embedding C code in Forth source.  Also
very effective.

Finally, with pfe, the practice is to write and compile Forth
primitive words as C functions anyway, so you just do that some
more, a straightforward process.

-- David

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1413

On Apr 22, 2:09 am, Bluebee <visualfo...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> Are there any tutorials available how to find the calling addresses?

It depends on the system context. For a big system, it is the process
of compiling its standard format dynamic link library and calling it,
and there are likely tutorials floating around for that, but of course
that is not what you are focusing on.

For the small system context, that is something that should be
documented by the C-compiler toolchain for that system. Whether there
is a public tutorial for it likely depends on how heavily that
toolchain is used by the hobbyist community ~ it would often be a
tutorial for calling a compiled routine from assembly, but if you have
that, and a Forth with CODE: ;CODE for that processor, it seems like
that would be most of the info needed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1435

On 22 Apr., 08:42, "David N. Williams" <willi...@umich.edu> wrote:
> On 4/22/11 2:09 AM, Bluebee wrote:
>  > Are there any tutorials available how to find the calling addresses?
>
> Gforth finds the calling addresses for you:
>
> http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/gforth/Docs-html/C-Interface.html
>
> The gforth system was already mentioned -- I'll just add that
> I'm using it a lot right now, and find it both effective and
> fast.
>
> Of the four systems that I'm familiar with, gforth's seems the
> most like what you asked for, a way embedding of C source in
> Forth source.
>

>
> -- David

On 22 Apr., 10:06, BruceMcF <agil...@netscape.net> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 2:09 am, Bluebee <visualfo...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Are there any tutorials available how to find the calling addresses?
>
> It depends on the system context. For a big system, it is the process
> of compiling its standard format dynamic link library and calling it,
> and there are likely tutorials floating around for that, but of course
> that is not what you are focusing on.
>
> For the small system context, that is something that should be
> documented by the C-compiler toolchain for that system. Whether there
> is a public tutorial for it likely depends on how heavily that
> toolchain is used by the hobbyist community ~ it would often be a
> tutorial for calling a compiled routine from assembly, but if you have
> that, and a Forth with CODE: ;CODE for that processor, it seems like
> that would be most of the info needed.

Thanks David, Thanks Bruce!
Thanks to everybody giving a comment!

After 22 days and 125 comments I have got the final answer now. This
was quite an adventure to get the gap between Forth and C closed to be
able to use C programs, libraries, and, most important: C-drivers for
embedded systems. Now I am well prepared to start my new adventure
with TI's value series launchpad. Take a look at
http://focus.ti.com/docs/toolsw/folders/print/430boost-sense1.html -
there is a video at the bottom. My goal is to get a umbilical byte
code Forth running on these microcontrollers.

Thanks to you all!

April 22nd, 2011
Dirk Bruehl

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1344

Bluebee <visualforth@rocketmail.com> wrote:

> I worked as a teacher for microprocessor programming once. I had to
> use the 8085, because the development kits had been at hand. I hated
> it. I would have preferred 6502, because of its clear and orthogonal
> command set. Not possible. I had to follow mainstream.

Clear and orthogonal?  The 6502 ? !!!  Must be some other "6502"
from the part everyone else used.  :-)

Andrew.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1318

In article <7a4ccfb9-6649-42c8-bf06-ae03bfb46747@d27g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
rickman  <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>I don't know for sure, but I'd be willing to bet you are confusing the
>8 bit PIC MCUs with the 32 bit PIC32.  If those folks are using the
>PIC32 it is just inertia.  There is virtually nothing in common
>between the PIC32 and the rest other than possibly the peripherals.

Intertia? Suppose you're in bed with the Microchip folks and
they arrive at your club meeting with a nice new processor?

>
>Rick

Groetjes Albert

--
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1319

On Apr 18, 9:12 pm, Albert van der Horst <alb...@spenarnc.xs4all.nl>
wrote:

>
> I would applaud any effort to bring Forth to the PIC.
> You see, the PIC chip has a large following, especially with
> amateurs, like robot builders. In the Netherlands we see a split
> between the Forth User group (mainly 8051 and Atmel), and the
> Robot User group mainly using PIC chips.
> Those people are not going to switch to ARM any time soon based
> on your arguments of technical superiority, especially now
> that the Microchip chip's are becoming nicer and more
> easily programmed. Note that they are hardware oriented,
> and have years of experience with the PIC processors.
>
> OTOH if they are shown an alternative for BASIC and C, they may
> get interested.
>
> Groetjes Albert
>

Maybe you can tell the Robot Users Group about FlashForth.
It works well for real-time control on PIC18, PIC24, dsPIC30, dsPIC33.
Both UART and USB link to host are supported.

Here is a video clip of a robot that one of the early
FlashForth adopters built in 2006.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EupcGfaMv7k

-- Mike

http://sourceforge.net/projects/flashforth/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1228

On 16 Apr., 06:12, Chris Baird <ab...@brushtail.apana.org.au> wrote:
>  > It would be great if somebody will take the job to make Gforth run on
>  > the PIC32. As I wrote, a window of opportunity. And most of the work
>  > seems to be done.
>
> The PIC32 GCC compiler suite provided by Microchip is however seriously
> encumbered by its reliance on $1200/head proprietry libraries. There's
> hardly any point GPL'ing the Maximite system for other developers to
> poke at, if they're stuck with Windows development boxes with License
> servers, and you've got legal obligations and risks from the runtime.
> ("No no no! Don't link the runtime to modified versions of the 'student'
> compiler!", etc.etc.blah.blah.)
>
> A serious pity, as I live within walking distance of a place I could buy
> a Maximite, and I've been after something like it for years. :/
>
> --
> Chris

Chris,

The MAXIMITE was developed by Graham Geoff a few month ago. He wrote
his own BASIC within 8 days, and the source code of this BASIC is
downloadable for free. To compile the source, he wrote "You should
install Microchip MPLAB IDE V8.56 or later and Microchip C32 C
Compiler V1.11B Student (or Lite) version".

I am not familiar with Microchip, but the story Graham wrote about the
MAXIMITE, is really interesting: http://geoffg.net/Maximite_Story.html

Dirk.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1252

>> [..] There's hardly any point GPL'ing the Maximite system for other
>> developers to poke at, if they're stuck with Windows development
>> boxes with License servers, and you've got legal obligations and
>> risks from the runtime [..]

> To compile the source, he wrote "You should install Microchip MPLAB
> IDE V8.56 or later and Microchip C32 C Compiler V1.11B Student (or
> Lite) version".

idem

 > But Andrew convinced me that the PIC32 on the MAXIMITE would be a
 > good choice, because this micro has a MIPS CPU, not the old GI
 > architecture, and there is no ARM microprocessor available at that
 > low price with that high amount of memory (512k program, 128k RAM),
 > UART/SPI/I2C, RTCC, 16 AD channels, 5 Timers/PWM, USB/CAN/ ETHERNET,
 > 8 DMA's, and only 64 pins. Without a Forth it is worthless for me.

Much the same motiviation here, although with experience handbumming
MIPS assembler and doing bare-metal embedded development with GNU's
tools. The MMBasic setup is a great idea, and follows in the tradition
of Australia's local microcomputer projects (ETI660, MiniScamp, Applied
Technology, Applix1616..) but the system is begging for more powerful
choices and for its owners to provide them. The hard dependency on MPLAB
and non-free libraries kills it for me though.

-- 
Chris

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1394

On Apr 10, 9:32 pm, Bluebee <visualfo...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> I installed Gforth on my laptop, it works really well.
> And then the next surprise: the source code  includes a MIPS
> assembler!!!

Is there a PIC24 Forth assembler available?

> It would be great if somebody will take the job to make Gforth run on
> the PIC32.

Running Gforth on a micro-controller is a horrible idea because Gforth
is slow as molasses. Using Gforth as a platform for cross-compilation
is a reasonably good idea though --- speed isn't an issue on the
desktop computer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1143

On Apr 7, 2:21 pm, Paul Rubin <no.em...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Andrew Reid <andrewrei...@gmail.com> writes:
> > There is a new exciting microprocessor on the market, the PIC32, based
> > on the famous MIPS architecture.
>
> Is something like that really exciting in this day and age, given the
> pervasiveness of ARM stuff?
>
> > In Australia I got a little box called "MAXIMITE" with this micro, and
> > it would be great to have Forth on it. Is anyone out there to help me
> > to get a MIPS Forth for the PIC32?
>
> I'd expect there's a GCC toolchain and you can port Gforth.

Gforth is too slow for application writing; it is just a toy
interpreter. As far as I know, the only purpose of Gforth is to
"prove" that C is a more powerful language than Forth because Forth
can be written in C. Well, Forth *can* be written in C, but the
downside is that it is slow as molasses, and also a lot more
complicated than traditional assembly-language implementations. I
consider Forth-in-C to be an abomination (although Forth-in-Perl is
worse); I would never get involved in something like that.

MIPS assembly-language is actually one of the easiest in existence. I
think it started out as an academic exercise. How hard could it really
be to generate MIPS machine code? You've got beau-coup registers and
an orthogonal instruction set --- what more were you really hoping
for? Previously I said that 68K assembly-language is more readable
than C code, but MIPS assembly-language should be even yet more
readable still.

The PIC32 isn't exactly new; it has been around for several years. The
last I heard though, the PIC32 had such tiny leads that it couldn't be
soldered by hand. It was only useful for mass-production items that
get fabricated by expensive equipment, but was not suitable for use in
hobbyist projects in which you are building your own board on a onesy-
twosy basis. By comparison, the PIC24 is only 16-bit (and it has 8-bit
I/O) which is somewhat weak by modern standards, but it is more
suitable for hobbyist projects because the leads are big enough to be
hand soldered. This is just what I was told; I don't actually know
anything about fabricating boards.

If the PIC32 is now being used in hobbyist projects, I would be
interested in contributing to a Forth system for it. That MaxiMite
board is pretty inexpensive --- it could fit into a cab driver's
budget. :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web