Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Portable Assembler
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 00:28:11 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <87wp8ke1ys.fsf@nightsong.com>
References: <ohepje$nfa$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="5dc3bf80bea170a1b9e96f608faa42c7"; logging-data="20331"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/MgL07pESeyI/RVOIO2dJj"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:98HtvRZMwLrS0aFv3Z68u+zR974= sha1:cS/f8idMlAE/bpm2hLo2Qt52Fhk=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:60545

rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
> So what happened with the conversation of the forth written in
> portable assembler?  

Portable assemblers been done a bunch of times.  See the "prior work"
section of Anton's PAF paper, e.g. systems like Spitbol, GNU Lightning,
etc.  Dan Bernstein's qhasm is also something like that, geared to
exposing the non-portable features of particular architectures in
addition to abstracting the portable ones.

Maybe Figforth was written in something like that style.  I know 
Forth traditionally has had abstract names for registers, like W,
TOS, and so on.