[squeak-dev] Anyone have any processors in Smalltalk or a formal semantics?

Eliot Miranda eliot.miranda at gmail.com
Fri Oct 31 01:36:14 UTC 2008

On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 6:21 PM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2008/10/31 Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com>:
> > Hi All,
> >     I wonder if anyone has any 32-bit processor implementations, either
> in
> > Smalltalk or in some other, preferrably easy-to-parse, formal semantics.
>  In
> > implementing the new JIT VM I would like to continue developing in
> Smalltalk
> > using VMMaker/Slang, but this implies having a processor simulation in
> > Smalltalk to produce actual machine code for.  Ideally this would be an
> x86
> > of some description (doesn't need to be bang up to date, 386 would be
> fine).
> >  I'd also welcome an ARM.
> > TIA
> >
> Hi Eliot.
> To my knowledge, Exupery is the only project which dealing with assembly
> code.
> There are some mechanisms to define instructions.

I understand that.  But I'm not too interested in code generation (I can
write this myself or adapt other code). What I need is a processor
simulation to generate code for, preferrably a clone of an x86, one that
executes its own instruction set.  Then I can test the JIT in Smalltalk.

I believe Peter Deutsch write a 68000 simulator when he implemented PS, the
first Smalltalk-80 JIT, but I could be wrong and perhaps he only implemented
an assembler for the 68000.

> >
> >
> --
> Best regards,
> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20081030/5cafc65a/attachment.htm

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list