Re: SHARC
vic plichota writes:
> No, it is not. If you don't believe me, then try it sometime, and
> you'll see what I mean... it can be done, but it's a bitch -- fussy
> and complicated.
That's too bad. Do you have any source left from your attempts? The
thing needs not to be efficient, all I need is a simple way to compile
Forth into SHARC assembly, with inline assembler capability.
> >(Due to it's limited on-die memory
>
> Bullshit -- even the cheapest SHARC variant is blessed with copious
> on-chip RAM -- at least for my purposes.
Well, copious is relative. There is certainly not enough space to run
a big fat bloated thing like a Unix-type kernel (unless we consider
QNX or Fiasco) in 4 MBits, and then there is the small matter of
having the data for the physical simulation, which is not very small.
> RTFM - vic
It is much more cost-effective to ask a professional who has actually
done development on such thing. So you're not very fond of SHARCs, are
you?
