Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]

Liste des GroupesRevenir à cl forth 
Sujet : Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]
De : anton (at) *nospam* mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
Groupes : comp.lang.forth
Date : 16. Sep 2024, 18:37:19
Autres entêtes
Organisation : Institut fuer Computersprachen, Technische Universitaet Wien
Message-ID : <2024Sep16.193719@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>
References : 1 2 3 4 5
User-Agent : xrn 10.11
Stephen Pelc <stephen@vfxforth.com> writes:
On 15 Sep 2024 at 23:45:22 CEST, "Paul Rubin" <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
Stephen Pelc <stephen@vfxforth.com> writes:
I would not make that trade off today.
So there's only one Stephen Pelc but two application domains.
 
I wonder how much effort de-localizing the TCP/IP stack took, compared
to hypothetically updating the compiler to optimize locals more.  If the
TCP/IP stack code can compile with iForth or lxf, is there a way to
compare the code size with VFX's?  I can understand wanting to use VFX
for actual delivery, of course.
>
On modern desktop CPUs, I would probably spend the effort on
optimising locals more. However, the ability to provide the address
of a local is essential in our world. I have not inspected our code
base to see how many uses of a local declaration of a buffer
: bah   {: ... | FOO[ cell ] ... -- :}
there are compared to the use of the ADDR (address) operator
applied to a normally defined local
: bah   {: ... |   FOO ... -- :}
...
 addr FOO

Yes, that's why Gforth does not support ADDR for locals by default:

: bah   {: ... |   FOO ... -- :}
  ...
  addr foo
*the terminal*:3:8: error: Unsupported operation
  addr >>>foo<<<

If you want that, there are two options: Either make it explicit with
WA: which local should support ADDR:

: bah   {: ... |   wa: FOO ... -- :}
  ...
  addr foo
;

compiles without error.  Alternatively, you can force slow mode on all
locals with DEFAULT-WA:.  So

default-wa:

: bah   {: ... |   FOO ... -- :}
  ...
  addr foo
;

compiles without error.

One intermediate option is to warn about ADDR applied to locals
defined without WA: FA: DA: CA:.  Once the program compiles without
any of these warnings, you can set

DEFAULT-W:

to gain the full speed for all the other locals.

- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl  http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
     New standard: https://forth-standard.org/
   EuroForth 2024: https://euro.theforth.net

Date Sujet#  Auteur
30 Aug 24 * Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]142Buzz McCool
30 Aug 24 +* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]9minforth
31 Aug 24 i+- Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]1BuzzMcCool
2 Sep 24 i+* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]4Buzz McCool
3 Sep 24 ii`* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]3dxf
3 Sep 24 ii `* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]2Buzz McCool
3 Sep 24 ii  `- Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]1dxf
11 Sep 24 i+* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]2minforth
11 Sep 24 ii`- Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]1Hans Bezemer
12 Sep 24 i`- Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]1dxf
31 Aug 24 `* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]132dxf
31 Aug 24  `* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]131BuzzMcCool
6 Sep 24   `* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]130Buzz McCool
7 Sep 24    +* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]123Hans Bezemer
10 Sep 24    i`* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]122Paul Rubin
10 Sep 24    i +- Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]1dxf
11 Sep 24    i +* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]117dxf
11 Sep 24    i i`* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]116dxf
12 Sep 24    i i `* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]115Paul Rubin
12 Sep 24    i i  +* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]98dxf
12 Sep 24    i i  i+* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]3minforth
12 Sep 24    i i  ii`* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]2mhx
12 Sep 24    i i  ii `- Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]1minforth
12 Sep 24    i i  i+* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]57Anton Ertl
13 Sep 24    i i  ii`* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]56dxf
13 Sep 24    i i  ii `* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]55minforth
13 Sep 24    i i  ii  `* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]54dxf
13 Sep 24    i i  ii   +* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]10Paul Rubin
13 Sep 24    i i  ii   i+* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]2Jan Coombs
13 Sep 24    i i  ii   ii`- Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]1Anton Ertl
13 Sep 24    i i  ii   i`* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]7dxf
14 Sep 24    i i  ii   i `* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]6Paul Rubin
14 Sep 24    i i  ii   i  `* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]5dxf
14 Sep 24    i i  ii   i   `* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]4Paul Rubin
15 Sep 24    i i  ii   i    `* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]3dxf
15 Sep 24    i i  ii   i     `* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]2Paul Rubin
16 Sep 24    i i  ii   i      `- Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]1dxf
13 Sep 24    i i  ii   +- Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]1albert
13 Sep 24    i i  ii   `* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]42Anton Ertl
14 Sep 24    i i  ii    `* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]41dxf
14 Sep 24    i i  ii     +- Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]1minforth
14 Sep 24    i i  ii     `* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]39Anton Ertl
14 Sep 24    i i  ii      +- Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]1dxf
15 Sep 24    i i  ii      `* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]37Stephen Pelc
15 Sep 24    i i  ii       `* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]36Anton Ertl
15 Sep 24    i i  ii        +* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]9Stephen Pelc
15 Sep 24    i i  ii        i+* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]7Paul Rubin
16 Sep 24    i i  ii        ii`* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]6Stephen Pelc
16 Sep 24    i i  ii        ii +- Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]1minforth
16 Sep 24    i i  ii        ii `* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]4Anton Ertl
16 Sep 24    i i  ii        ii  `* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]3mhx
16 Sep 24    i i  ii        ii   `* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]2Anton Ertl
17 Sep 24    i i  ii        ii    `- Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]1mhx
16 Sep 24    i i  ii        i`- Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]1Anton Ertl
27 Sep 24    i i  ii        `* value-flavoured structures (was: Avoid treating the stack as an array)26Ruvim
27 Sep 24    i i  ii         +* Re: value-flavoured structures15minforth
27 Sep 24    i i  ii         i+- Re: value-flavoured structures1mhx
27 Sep 24    i i  ii         i`* Re: value-flavoured structures13Ruvim
27 Sep 24    i i  ii         i `* Re: value-flavoured structures12minforth
27 Sep 24    i i  ii         i  +* Re: value-flavoured structures8Ruvim
28 Sep 24    i i  ii         i  i+* Re: value-flavoured structures6Paul Rubin
28 Sep 24    i i  ii         i  ii+* Re: value-flavoured structures2dxf
28 Sep 24    i i  ii         i  iii`- Re: value-flavoured structures1Paul Rubin
28 Sep 24    i i  ii         i  ii`* Re: value-flavoured structures3albert
28 Sep 24    i i  ii         i  ii `* Re: value-flavoured structures2Paul Rubin
28 Sep 24    i i  ii         i  ii  `- Re: value-flavoured structures1Paul Rubin
28 Sep 24    i i  ii         i  i`- Re: value-flavoured structures1dxf
3 Oct 24    i i  ii         i  `* Re: value-flavoured structures3Anton Ertl
4 Oct 24    i i  ii         i   `* Re: value-flavoured structures2dxf
4 Oct 24    i i  ii         i    `- Re: value-flavoured structures1albert
3 Oct 24    i i  ii         `* Re: value-flavoured structures (was: Avoid treating the stack as an array)10Anton Ertl
4 Oct 24    i i  ii          `* Re: value-flavoured structures9Ruvim
4 Oct 24    i i  ii           `* Re: value-flavoured structures8Anton Ertl
4 Oct 24    i i  ii            `* Re: value-flavoured structures7Ruvim
4 Oct 24    i i  ii             `* Re: value-flavoured structures6Anton Ertl
5 Oct 24    i i  ii              `* Re: value-flavoured structures5Ruvim
5 Oct 24    i i  ii               `* Re: value-flavoured structures4Anton Ertl
6 Oct 24    i i  ii                +- value-flavoured properties of a word (was: value-flavoured structures)1Ruvim
6 Oct 24    i i  ii                +- value-flavoured approach (was: value-flavoured structures)1Ruvim
6 Oct 24    i i  ii                `- value-flavoured approach in API (was: value-flavoured structures)1Ruvim
14 Sep 24    i i  i`* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]37Anton Ertl
14 Sep 24    i i  i +* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]34Ahmed
14 Sep 24    i i  i i+* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]32Anton Ertl
14 Sep 24    i i  i ii`* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]31Ahmed
14 Sep 24    i i  i ii +- Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]1Ahmed
14 Sep 24    i i  i ii +* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]7Ahmed
14 Sep 24    i i  i ii i`* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]6mhx
14 Sep 24    i i  i ii i +* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]4Ahmed
15 Sep 24    i i  i ii i i`* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]3minforth
15 Sep 24    i i  i ii i i `* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]2Ahmed
15 Sep 24    i i  i ii i i  `- Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]1Ahmed
15 Sep 24    i i  i ii i `- Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]1albert
15 Sep 24    i i  i ii `* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]22dxf
15 Sep 24    i i  i ii  +* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]16Ahmed
15 Sep 24    i i  i ii  i`* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]15mhx
15 Sep 24    i i  i ii  i `* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]14ahmed
16 Sep 24    i i  i ii  i  `* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]13Ahmed
16 Sep 24    i i  i ii  i   `* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]12mhx
16 Sep 24    i i  i ii  i    +- Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]1Ahmed
16 Sep 24    i i  i ii  i    +* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]3dxf
16 Sep 24    i i  i ii  i    i+- Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]1Ahmed
16 Sep 24    i i  i ii  i    i`- Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]1mhx
16 Sep 24    i i  i ii  i    `* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]7Paul Rubin
15 Sep 24    i i  i ii  `* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]5Paul Rubin
15 Sep 24    i i  i i`- Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]1albert
15 Sep 24    i i  i `* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]2dxf
12 Sep 24    i i  `* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]16Anton Ertl
11 Sep 24    i `* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]3Hans Bezemer
8 Sep 24    `* Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]6Stephen Pelc

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal