Re: P-Code vs TIL

> For the weight of a FORTH interpreter I'd rather see a way of
> dynamically linking new object code into the kernel. You could then
> specify a dynamically (or staticly) linked kernel kernel function
> as the hander routine for a given interrupt. This would be a
> reasonably general mechanism for kernel extensibility, but still
> kind of expensive for a small microkernel. P-code seems the
> way to go for the moment.

Indeed, what we need here is a dynamic loader for kernel code.
But the problem of having P-code, threaded code, or assembly is orthogonal
to it, and orthogonal to having C, FORTH, or anything else as a source
language. The compiler is outside the kernel. And once the compiler worked,
it's easiest to use assembly or threaded code than P-code.
The p-code interpreter for CAML-light itself is more than 10 KB !
Received on Sat Nov 12 09:46:32 1994