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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #17203

Re: Buddy System Memory Allocator

Show all headers | View raw

"Paul Rubin" <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:7xpq3njgwp.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> writes:
...

> > At some point, an OS developer coding in a HLL (high-level language)
> > will likely create their own compiler, or attempt to bootstrap an
> > existing compiler.  The more complicated the compiler, the less likely
> > it is that they'll succeed.
>
> I don't understand this.  I don't see why someone writing an OS would
> write their own compiler, under normal circumstances.  If they were
> writing a general purpose OS then of course they'd have to target a
> toolchain to it (probably more about the linker etc. than the compiler
> proper).
>

Well, I started my OS using existing C compilers, none of which have ever
been used to produce an OS.  At first, development was very fast.  I didn't
have to create my own toolchain.  I didn't have to code in "primitive"
assembly.  However, C compilers are not completely independent of the
environment they were coded for.  Much of the C language is and many parts
of the C library can be.  But, there are still many things in the toolchain
that produce environment specific code, e.g., code for interrupts.  You
can't get around it, without rewriting the toolchain you're using.  Of
course, the toolchain is so large and complex, you're not going to waste
time doing that.  You just have to handle the problems such environment
specific code creates.  So, eventually, you become frustrated with the lack
of control.  Next, you find bugs in the compiler or library, which you have
to code around too.  Finally, you come to the conclusion that you should've
developed your own simple toolchain first, because you can't control
everything you need to control for your OS without total control of the
toolchain.

> > For my OS project, I really don't even want C.
>
> I thought you were writing a Forth.  You're writing an OS too?
>

Yes, I have an in-progress Forth interpreter.  Yes, I have an stalled OS
project too.  Also, x86 assembler, x86 interpreter, a bunch of different
attempts at C parsers and/or lexers, and C compilers, a simple C-like
programming language, etc.  None are entirely complete.  I have too many
projects for my time.

The OS project stalled after coming across two problems: computer with
needed IDE hardware died, and the "lack of control" toolchain problem above.

> > I want a very small C subset.  Technically, even that is a bit more
> > than I really want.  If assemblers could manage variables like C, I'd
> > probably use an assembler.
>
> Why not use the Forth you're writing?
>

I can't not offend Forth users by replying honestly to that.

Basically, I have yet to see Forth as being an effective language.
Although, I've only coded various Forth dictionary words so far.  However,
there are a few things I find negative or detrimental about Forth.  C or
PL/1 are far more powerful and effective than any other languages from what
I've seen.  C and Forth are noteworthy in that they are far more widespread
than other languages because of their minimal, simple machine models.
Pascal, Fortran, BASIC, etc just aren't that useful, i.e., generally
high-level, but no low-level, or other problematic features.

I'd also need a Forth compiler, not a Forth interpreter.  That would be
another project...  Generating code, even for very simple languages, is far
more complicated than creating address-lists used by DTC and ITC.


Rod Pemberton

Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

[OT] Buddy System Memory Allocator "Mark" <mark@dibsco.co.uk> - 2012-11-04 20:10 +0000
  Re: Buddy System Memory Allocator Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-04 15:05 -0800
    Re: Buddy System Memory Allocator Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-04 22:02 -0800
      Re: Buddy System Memory Allocator "Mark" <mark@dibsco.co.uk> - 2012-11-10 12:53 +0000
        Re: Buddy System Memory Allocator "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-11-10 20:25 -0500
          Re: Buddy System Memory Allocator Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2012-11-11 11:49 +0000
            Re: Buddy System Memory Allocator Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-11-11 17:43 +0100
              Re: Buddy System Memory Allocator Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2012-11-12 01:55 +0000
            Re: Buddy System Memory Allocator "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-11-11 07:06 -1000
    Re: Buddy System Memory Allocator Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-05 06:33 -0800
    Re: Buddy System Memory Allocator "Mark" <mark@dibsco.co.uk> - 2012-11-10 12:05 +0000
      Re: Buddy System Memory Allocator Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-13 19:49 -0800
  Re: [OT] Buddy System Memory Allocator Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-04 16:55 -0800
    Re: Buddy System Memory Allocator Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-04 19:08 -0800
    Re: [OT] Buddy System Memory Allocator "Mark" <mark@dibsco.co.uk> - 2012-11-07 08:49 +0000
  Re: [OT] Buddy System Memory Allocator Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2012-11-05 08:17 +0200
    Re: [OT] Buddy System Memory Allocator "Mark" <mark@dibsco.co.uk> - 2012-11-07 09:02 +0000
  Re: [OT] Buddy System Memory Allocator "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-11-05 14:10 -0500
    Re: Buddy System Memory Allocator Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-05 12:58 -0800
      Re: Buddy System Memory Allocator "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-11-06 20:54 -0500
        Re: Buddy System Memory Allocator Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-06 21:50 -0800
          Re: Buddy System Memory Allocator "Mark" <mark@dibsco.co.uk> - 2012-11-07 08:36 +0000
          Re: Buddy System Memory Allocator "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-11-07 19:49 -0500
            Re: Buddy System Memory Allocator Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-08 04:42 -0800
            Re: Buddy System Memory Allocator Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-08 19:43 -0800
              Re: Buddy System Memory Allocator albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2012-11-09 10:48 +0000
              Re: Buddy System Memory Allocator Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-11-09 22:15 +0100
        Re: Buddy System Memory Allocator Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-07 12:46 -0800
      Re: Buddy System Memory Allocator "Mark" <mark@dibsco.co.uk> - 2012-11-10 13:09 +0000
        Re: Buddy System Memory Allocator Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-10 07:43 -0800
    Re: [OT] Buddy System Memory Allocator "Mark" <mark@dibsco.co.uk> - 2012-11-07 09:34 +0000
      Re: Buddy System Memory Allocator Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-11-07 04:07 -0800
        Re: Buddy System Memory Allocator "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-11-07 19:44 -0500
          Re: Buddy System Memory Allocator Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-07 16:57 -0800
            Re: Buddy System Memory Allocator "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-11-07 20:14 -0500
              Re: Buddy System Memory Allocator Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-07 17:32 -0800
                Re: Buddy System Memory Allocator anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-11-08 12:32 +0000
                Re: Buddy System Memory Allocator Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-08 20:00 -0800
                Re: Buddy System Memory Allocator "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-11-09 02:20 -0500
                Re: Buddy System Memory Allocator Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-09 00:53 -0800
                Re: Buddy System Memory Allocator "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-11-09 19:10 -0500
                Re: Buddy System Memory Allocator Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-09 18:47 -0800
                Re: Buddy System Memory Allocator "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-11-10 02:16 -0500
                Re: Buddy System Memory Allocator "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-11-09 17:51 -1000
                Re: Buddy System Memory Allocator Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-11-09 22:51 -0800
                Re: Buddy System Memory Allocator "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-11-10 02:26 -0500
                Re: Buddy System Memory Allocator "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-11-09 22:01 -1000
                Re: Buddy System Memory Allocator Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-11-09 22:49 -0800
                Re: Buddy System Memory Allocator "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-11-10 02:15 -0500
                Re: Buddy System Memory Allocator Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-11-09 22:57 -0800
            Re: Buddy System Memory Allocator Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-11-08 00:22 -0800
        Re: Buddy System Memory Allocator "Mark" <mark@dibsco.co.uk> - 2012-11-10 13:43 +0000
  Re: [OT] Buddy System Memory Allocator Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-07 13:10 +0000
    Re: [OT] Buddy System Memory Allocator Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-07 13:31 +0000
  Re: [OT] Buddy System Memory Allocator Charles Mélice <charles.melice@gmail.com> - 2012-11-11 05:29 -0800

csiph-web