Hi Alexander,

I have just been reading the mailing list and I saw that Pico lisp is being
rewritten in assembly (written in Pico lisp), to get better control,
wouldn't it be better to use
gcc's lowest middle end language.


In this language, the instructions to be output are described, pretty much
> one by one, in an algebraic form that describes what the instruction does.
> RTL is inspired by Lisp lists. It has both an internal form, made up of
> structures that point at other structures, and a textual form that is used
> in the machine description and in printed debugging dumps. The textual form
> uses nested parentheses to indicate the pointers in the internal form.

> (set:SI (reg:SI 140) (plus:SI (reg:SI 138) (reg:SI 139)))
> This "side-effect expression" says "add the contents of register 138 to the
> contents of register 139 and store the result in register 140."
This could make it machine independent. I just found out about it and it
sounds pretty good, it shouldn't be too hard to change your abstraction
layer to generate this if you wanted to use it.

I'm just wondering, in your assembly are you using system calls or stdlib?
and how far into the next version you are?

Thank you for your awsome language, right now I'm debugging a picolisp vim
syntax file that I'll post when it's done, I might also make some plugins
for it.

- JR

Reply via email to