Sujet : Re: Implementing DOES>: How not to do it (and why not) and how to do it
De : albert (at) *nospam* spenarnc.xs4all.nl
Groupes : comp.lang.forthDate : 14. Jul 2024, 10:02:52
Autres entêtes
Organisation : KPN B.V.
Message-ID : <nnd$68dd354d$5a60d664@a6110a1e6f38ddc9>
References : 1 2
User-Agent : trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
In article <
2024Jul13.173138@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>,
Anton Ertl <
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
<SNIP>
>
In any case, if you are a system implementor, you may want to check
your DOES> implementation with a microbenchmark that stores into the
does-defined word in a case where that word is not inlined.
Is that equally valid for indirect threaded code?
In indirect threaded code the instruction and data cache
are more separated, e.g. in a simple Forth all the low level
code could fit in the I-cache, if I'm not mistaken.
>
- anton
Groetjes Albert
-- Don't praise the day before the evening. One swallow doesn't make spring.You must not say "hey" before you have crossed the bridge. Don't sell thehide of the bear until you shot it. Better one bird in the hand than ten inthe air. First gain is a cat purring. - the Wise from Antrim -