Re: Discussion: The need of a 65xx HAL

From: gsteemso <*48bitsorbust_at_gmail.com*> Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2022 19:13:12 -0700 Message-Id: <3AB14537-2C78-4E5E-B599-D8470C52044D_at_gmail.com> · 48bitsorbust_at_gmail.com

There's a reason Java has an OS underneath it.  Something similar would let your 65xx abstraction run on any vaguely comparable machine without needing to be re-architected for every piffling hardware difference.  What exactly is the use case you're advocating that would benefit from fewer interstitial software interfaces?

> On Sep 3, 2022, at 5:22 PM, tokafondo_at_tokafondo.name wrote:
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Glenn Holmer <cenbe_at_protonmail.com>
> To: cbm-hackers_at_musoftware.de
> Sent: sáb., 03 sept. 2022 23:51
> Subject: Re: Discussion: The need of a 65xx HAL
> 
> On 9/3/22 15:24, tokafondo_at_tokafondo.name wrote:
> >> Via the use of an simulator/emulator, the programmer would code and
> >> debug what needed and once done, via a compiler it would translate to
> >> VHDL code that would create the exact CPU or MPU needed for the
> >> needed application.
> 
> >Java. It's called Java.
> 
> Sort of... AFAIK needs an underlying OS running the JVM.
> 
> My proposal is creating something that would sit between a CPU and the 65xx instruction set. 
> 
> --
> Glenn Holmer (Linux registered user #16682)
> "After the vintage season came the aftermath -- and Cenbe."
> 
> 
> 