[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Cross compiling
From: |
Ethan Gardener |
Subject: |
Re: Cross compiling |
Date: |
Mon, 01 Mar 2021 20:54:21 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Cyrus-JMAP/3.5.0-alpha0-206-g078a48fda5-fm-20210226.001-g078a48fd |
On Mon, Mar 1, 2021, at 7:40 PM, Josh Grams wrote:
> On 2021-03-01 07:32PM, Ethan Gardener wrote:
> >jonesforth.f is shorter than jonesforth.S, but so much of both files are
> >comments, it's hard to compare the code sizes.
>
> But they're not the same thing, are they? They're two parts of the same
> system. jonesforth.S is the core engine that is written in asm,
> jonesforth.f is the rest of the system that builds on top and is
> written in Forth.
I was responding to Anton Ertl's comment, "Assembly language is not a
particularly nice way of writing Forth
code, though (and most of a Forth system is written in Forth);" particularly
with a view to what proportion of Jonesforth is assembly language. Looks like
Francesco Ariis has the answer: about 1/3. It could be less if cross-compiled.
> >I imagine JonesForth's double-indirect threading would be good for 8-bit
> >systems.
>
> Did he ever get his terminology straight? That was always my main beef
> with JonesForth: he didn't understand what direct/indirect threading
> actually referred to. I tried to help straighten things out (as did, I
> think, a couple of the long-time comp.lang.forth regulars) but he was
> sure that he knew better than anyone else.
Ah. I guess I'll have to conceed this point; if Richard Jones got it wrong, so
have I. (I've never been good with terminology and never read as much as I
should.) Whatever the terminology, JF's design of compiling definitions to
lists of addresses seems good for small-memory systems.