Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.glorb.com!dotsrc.org!filter.dotsrc.org!news.dotsrc.org!not-for-mail
From: Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: typical actual time for implementing kernel in a new architecture?
Organization: nocrew
References: <6ad9329a-8af2-423a-a6b1-5fb53de37e1f@googlegroups.com> <86h914io15.fsf@molnjunk.nocrew.org> <oe7ntu$l4d$1@dont-email.me>
Date: Tue, 02 May 2017 08:13:50 +0200
Message-ID: <86a86viy5d.fsf@molnjunk.nocrew.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:NoHoKtq5suFuo6Debd+wRCFW3/I=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Lines: 9
NNTP-Posting-Host: 178.18.91.250
X-Trace: news.sunsite.dk DXC=n9[6jGmm;`7RV[Kf06ReB9YSB=nbEKnk;:02ZWQ`i[j4nY:6X7^ZBN7I57e>YZ9SO;1HBfORCSCc3D5J_h8H;EF3I2Ic:1WDKB3
X-Complaints-To: staff@sunsite.dk
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:58468

Ron Aaron wrote:
>> If everything goes reasonably well, it takes about a day to write a
>> new assembler, and another day for writing the new assembly language
>> primitives and testing the resulting Forth image.
> Really?  That's quite impressive.

My ARM port took two days, but maybe that's a best case scenario:  A nice
architecture (just the simple original 32-bit instruction set), and lot
of copying from previous targets.