Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #54991
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.forth |
| Subject | Re: How easy to port to this 68000 variant-ish? |
| Date | 2017-02-18 19:50 -0800 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <87fujan8jk.fsf@nightsong.com> (permalink) |
| References | <868fa053-875a-4c87-92fd-edb924ca7efd@googlegroups.com> <87o9xzm4e7.fsf@nightsong.com> <1cfdac60-4f4b-4769-93d7-386275fd672b@googlegroups.com> |
jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> writes: > majority of code would have quite a lot of 1 to 1 machine code mapping. You mean you want to run 68000 binaries on the new cpu after some machine translation? It's not impossible, binary translators are written all the time, but if you want a 32-bit m68k why not use one? Don't they still make them? > The boot strap of a whole OS would be comparatively simple. I doubt this ;-)
Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
How easy to port to this 68000 variant-ish? jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 13:44 -0800
Re: How easy to port to this 68000 variant-ish? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-18 16:05 -0800
Re: How easy to port to this 68000 variant-ish? jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 16:15 -0800
Re: How easy to port to this 68000 variant-ish? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-18 19:50 -0800
Re: How easy to port to this 68000 variant-ish? jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 20:17 -0800
Re: How easy to port to this 68000 variant-ish? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-18 17:41 -0800
Re: How easy to port to this 68000 variant-ish? jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 19:29 -0800
csiph-web