Re: configuring ffl for ciforth

On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 19:17:22 +0000, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:

In article <cbdf5aa0c5eceac492781def143fe523@www.novabbs.com>,
mhx <mhx@iae.nl> wrote:

[..]

I use the convention that 0 is a null-address. If that is the same
in iforth I can probably use the same definition.

I don't know what the purpose of the word under questioning is.
If it is to query for 'unsafe' addresses, or one specific
unsafe address, then 0 will work...
FORTH> 0 ?
Caught exception 0xc0000005
ACCESS VIOLATION
instruction pointer = $000000000124A1DB
        RAX = $01253425 RBX = $00000000
        RCX = $00000000 RDX = $0000005F
        RSI = $01155C00 RDI = $2F06F7D0
        RBP = $01125F88 RSP = $2F06F818
        R8  = $00001320 R9  = $00000020
        R10 = $00FB0000 R11 = $00000000
        R12 = $00FB0000 R13 = $01157000
        R14 = $01136000 R15 = $01110000
Hardware exception in ``?''+$0000000B
**** RETURN STACK DUMP **** for MAIN-THREAD
.. but 1 ? , or everything out of the program's memory
is just as bad.
On a transputer 0 ? could be perfect valid, but IIRC,
Parsec's C compiler treated it as an exception and we
followed them with tForth. Not sure if the FFL had this
in mind.
-marcel