Op Fri, 19 Sep 2008 00:19:51 -0700 (PDT) schreef MarkWills: Hi there, I'm writing a traditional ITC FORTH implimentation on my favourite processor, the very old TMS9900 (RISC, stackless). I have a question regarding DOCOL. Should DOCOL follow the 'norm' of having a CFA (code-field address) or can it be considered a 'special' routine? I couldn't get things ...
In article <f187036c-67e6-45d1-afba-b4063065609b@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, MarkWills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: Hi there, I'm writing a traditional ITC FORTH implimentation on my favourite processor, the very old TMS9900 (RISC, stackless). I have a question regarding DOCOL. Should DOCOL follow the 'norm' of having a CFA (code-field address) or can it be ...
MarkWills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: Hi there, I'm writing a traditional ITC FORTH implimentation on my favourite processor, the very old TMS9900 (RISC, stackless). I have a question regarding DOCOL. Should DOCOL follow the 'norm' of having a CFA (code-field address) or can it be considered a 'special' routine? DOCOL is, traditionally, just the ;CODE part of : ...
Hi there, I'm writing a traditional ITC FORTH implimentation on my favourite processor, the very old TMS9900 (RISC, stackless). I have a question regarding DOCOL. Should DOCOL follow the 'norm' of having a CFA (code-field address) or can it be considered a 'special' routine? I couldn't get things working until I realised that EXIT needed one, and I am starting to think that DOCOL ...
On May 1, 8:53 pm, m...@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) wrote: brian....@rogers.com writes Re: Why is GForth-ITC fast? [..] variable x \ Suggest: 1024 allot : test! 100 0 do 30000 0 do \ 100 ! store ops i x ! i x ! i x ! i x ! i x ! i x ! i x ! i x ! i x ! i x ! [..] loop loop ; \ ...
brian.fox@rogers.com writes Re: Why is GForth-ITC fast? [..] variable x \ Suggest: 1024 allot : test! 100 0 do 30000 0 do \ 100 ! store ops i x ! i x ! i x ! i x ! i x ! i x ! i x ! i x ! i x ! i x ! [..] loop loop ; \ Benchmarks done on AMD Sempron 1.6 GHz, with 1 Gb RAM; Windows XP SP2 \ Hs/Forth \ elapse test!...
...I don't understand why it is generally faster than other ITC Forths that are written in Assembler like CI-Forth or my... Anyway, HS/Forth takes 28%% longer to run TEST! than GForth-itc \ Test NEXT without LODSW \ standard NEXT macro in HS/Forth. Recompiled ...:00:05.22 ok \ 28%% slower than GForth (below) \ Gforth-itc version 6 \ elapse test! \ Elapsed time: 00:00:04.070 ok :...
..., I would not expect that to play a significant role with ITC on modern CPUs (it is pretty bad with traditional ITC on Pentium, Pentium MMX, and K6 series CPUs). I'm getting tempted to argue that if you're using ITC, you aren't interested in performance <grin>. The instruction techniques that improve ITC are applicable to all models. After doing the VFX code ...
...<robert.spykerman@gmail.com> writes: On May 1, 12:30 pm, brian....@rogers.com wrote: I have been dis-assembling pieces of GForth and I don't understand why it is generally faster than other ITC Forths that are written in Assembler like CI-Forth or my old 16 bit HS/Forth. It is? On what hardware? On what benchmarks? How much? I have a few measure point here. Pentium 90...
... article <62b620ea-05c4-4817-8e52-e2c81e640693@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, <brian.fox@rogers.com> wrote: I have been dis-assembling pieces of GForth and I don't understand why it is generally faster than other ITC Forths that are written in Assembler like CI-Forth or my old 16 bit HS/Forth. The Assembler primitives seem to be so much smaller from what I can see. Is the C compiler ...
