On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 9:14 PM, Bob Ammerman <rammerman@verizon.net> wrote:
> My idea is simple this: implement Forth, or a similar threaded language. In
> this case the executable code is a combination of interpreted address lists
> and ordinary machine code. However, instead of using the machine stack,
> Forth uses its own internal data and procedural stacks. The pre-emptive
> multitasking is done in the "Next" routine of the Forth interpreter. Note
> that interrupt level code would likely still be written in assembly, and
> that interrupts could remain enabled at all times. The interrupt handlers
> would just set flags which the preemptive scheduler would notice when it
> next got control.
>
> This idea is, of course, very similar to some which have already been
> mentioned on this thread.

I wanted to get my pitchfork out as soon as you said "Forth".
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist