Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial

From	Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.forth
Subject	Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial
References	(9 earlier) <3663da69-944d-4880-96df-f99d5c240bee@r19g2000prm.googlegroups.com> <7x8vv1iezw.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <3a840d60-57d9-442f-a3df-c47add0189b9@j16g2000pro.googlegroups.com> <7x62q277aa.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <6367f443-6293-46ec-b246-440c9f72868b@q12g2000prb.googlegroups.com>
Date	2011-04-27 22:39 -0700
Message-ID	<7xmxjb9bot.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> (permalink)
Organization	Nightsong/Fort GNOX

Show all headers | View raw

John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> writes:
> Elegant... and stupidly expensive in both RAM and processor cycles...
> That's 20 bytes of stack wasted to print a number.

Well, "wasted" implies that you don't get it back when the function
returns, which you do.  More relevant is whether some other path in the
application uses even more stack depth, in which case you have to 
reserve the stack space anyway.

Keep in mind also that the most likely reason to encounter this code is
it's inside code you're porting from some other project or product.
That means if you rewrite it, in addition to the
programming/testing/process effort of "fixing" something that is already
tested and working, you now have an unnecessary fork point in your code
base, something that requires some level of justification beyond
"stupidly expensive".  (Does anyone use 128-byte 8051's any more
anyway?)

Remember too that the iterative version will probably use a pointer
variable (2 bytes) and an in-memory buffer (5 bytes), so the recursive
version maybe only uses 12-13 more bytes, not 20.  And of course the
iterative version can be done pretty badly too: look at
http://www.cpm.z80.de/small_c.html, extract the
http://www.cpm.z80.de/small_c/smc88dos.zip (small C for 8088) zip file,
look at itoa.c and the layers of crap it calls, and weep.  Its stack
consumption looks like more than 20 bytes when you count everything.

As for CPU cycles, the i/o and the division by 10 may dominate the stack
operations either way.

> If a programmer working under me submitted that code, it would be
> flagged in a code review and they would be asked to rewrite it using
> iteration.

And if you invoiced me for such a rewrite of working and
already-deployed code, without concrete justification (product
functionality visibly improved by having the extra few bytes available),
I'd be concerned that you were wasting my money ;-).  It seemed like
just a minute ago you were saying "for many the goal is less about
optimality and more about pragmatism"[1] but now you're writing these
creeds about a dozen bytes in a print function.  Really, I'd expect the
compiler library to already have a decimal print function (probably
written in assembler in a small-platform implementation) so if the
recursive function gets replaced at all, it should be to the library
routine rather than a newly written function.

> Rule number one for any embedded system programmer is to "respect the
> target." 

You mean it's not "ship the product"?  ;-)

> Your "usual hack" is saying, "I have no interest in the
> specifics of the target, I'm going to pretend that I can do anything I
> can do on any other platform that supports C."

You mean like port existing code?

> This is in fact the kind of thing that is a big blinking neon sign
> over the head of the programmer that says "I am unfamiliar with how to
> write code appropriate for platforms such as this."

Really, for writing new code on such a platform, if you're really
concerned about resources, C is just a terrible language, though
it sounds like you're already halfway to turning it into "C-like"
for the sake of getting around those issues.  You're better off
with a language more suitable for the architecture.

> Nearly universally, there is no floating point hardware, so your
> application gets linked with floating point support libraries.  And
> again, memory is precious, so you don't waste it with more precision
> than you need.  

Right, that's why float and double are two separate types, and you
don't ask for a double unless you need one.

> More to the point, if you are using reals, you are
> more than likely also using a routine in math.h, and if you look at
> the prototypes, nearly every one of them accepts one or more doubles

The version I'm looking at (glibc's) is conditionalized to use doubles
or floats.  Andrew would know more about it, but IIRC the C standards
folks put some effort into getting stuff straightened out in C99 so you
don't get doubles when you only want floats.

> Yes, creating a virtual machine is one way to bring C (and other
> languages) to the GA144.  The obvious advantage being that one can
> design and optimize the virtual machine for the language, and one can
> run much larger programs than one could on any individual processor.

Right, that's the idea, to run big programs and existing code.  On the
GA node itself, I don't see much point to trying to write in C, since
with only 64 words of program memory, writing in assembler (i.e. Array
Forth) is not much of a roadblock, and there's no useful existing C code
to port anyway.  From what I can tell you really do have to program
those things at quite a low level, carefully managing the partitioning
and interaction between nodes.  You can't just plop nodes down like
bricks based on the amount of resources you need.  So the request for a
C compiler targeted to a VM is like suggesting a softcore processor that
runs C for an FPGA.

> Targeting a virtual machine is the kind of thing I would do for larger
> code that didn't need to run at insanely fast speeds, such as user
> interfaces, Ethernet network stacks, and stuff like that.  

Yes, that is the idea.

> Targeting the processors themselves would be more for signal
> processing, implementing hardware, etc.

If you want a HLL for that, C just seems like a terrible choice.
Better to concoct some DSL that carefully tracks the stack content,
has interprocedural optimization, knows about inter-node communication,
etc.

> Years ago, with an older version of LCC,

Be aware that LCC isn't free except for personal use.  It's partly a
matter of background and preference but I'd be more likely to start with
something like Atom: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/atom
I've fooled with it some, and it is pretty simple to extend if you know
Haskell.

The same guy has something called ImProve that also looks interesting:
https://github.com/tomahawkins/improve/wiki/ImProve

[1] http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.forth/msg/3ac101648a3c4cec

Thread

made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial gavino <gavcomedy@gmail.com> - 2011-04-17 00:34 -0700
  Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial "The Beez'" <hansoft@bigfoot.com> - 2011-04-17 02:29 -0700
  Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial alberto pasquale <alberto@hal-pc.org> - 2011-04-18 12:55 -0700
    Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial "The Beez'" <hansoft@bigfoot.com> - 2011-04-18 14:45 -0700
      Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-04-19 09:06 +0000
    Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-18 20:30 -0700
    Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-18 20:33 -0700
    Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial David Kuehling <dvdkhlng@gmx.de> - 2011-04-19 13:04 +0200
      Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2011-04-19 22:09 +0200
        Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial "The Beez'" <hansoft@bigfoot.com> - 2011-04-19 23:40 -0700
          Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2011-04-20 21:27 +0200
            Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial alberto pasquale <alberto@hal-pc.org> - 2011-04-20 14:56 -0700
              Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2011-04-20 22:42 +0000
              Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-04-20 22:26 -0700
              Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2011-04-21 20:51 +0200
              Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2011-04-26 16:40 +0000
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-04-26 22:23 +0200
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-04-26 13:34 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-04-27 14:48 +0000
            Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-04-21 04:07 -0500
              Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-21 07:38 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-04-21 08:10 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-04-22 12:35 +0000
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-04-22 08:51 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-04-23 10:17 +0000
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial gavino <gavcomedy@gmail.com> - 2011-04-23 18:05 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-04-21 11:16 -0500
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-04-23 11:26 +0000
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial gavino <gavcomedy@gmail.com> - 2011-04-23 18:07 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-24 00:10 -0700
              Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-21 11:38 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-04-21 15:13 -0500
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-21 14:07 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-21 15:05 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-21 15:24 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-04-22 12:48 +0000
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-22 10:51 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-21 17:41 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-21 18:16 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-21 18:58 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-21 19:49 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-22 00:02 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-22 06:59 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-23 01:20 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-21 21:11 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-22 00:16 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-22 10:12 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Jan Coombs <jan_2011-02@murray-microft.co.uk> - 2011-04-23 07:38 +0100
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-25 00:05 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Jan Coombs <jan_2011-02@murray-microft.co.uk> - 2011-04-25 13:34 +0100
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-25 08:50 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-25 23:11 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-22 00:18 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-22 10:19 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-25 10:43 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-25 13:17 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-25 16:32 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-25 18:21 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Charles G Montgomery <cgm@physics.utoledo.edu> - 2011-04-26 19:36 -0400
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-26 21:05 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-26 23:36 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-27 08:57 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-04-28 11:53 +0000
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-29 22:21 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Jan Coombs <jan_2011-02@murray-microft.co.uk> - 2011-04-27 17:41 +0100
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-27 09:53 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-04-26 11:39 +0000
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-25 23:22 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-26 17:51 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-04-23 10:33 +0000
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-25 00:48 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-29 22:24 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-04-22 09:44 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-22 11:36 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-04-22 17:08 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-23 18:11 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-23 00:49 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-04-23 03:55 -0500
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-04-23 14:47 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-23 11:12 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Jan Coombs <jan_2011-02@murray-microft.co.uk> - 2011-04-30 16:33 +0100
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-05-01 23:03 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-05-02 22:15 +0200
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-05-02 19:15 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Jan Coombs <jan_2011-02@murray-microft.co.uk> - 2011-05-04 08:14 +0100
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-05-04 00:51 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Jan Coombs <jan_2011-02@murray-microft.co.uk> - 2011-05-04 22:03 +0100
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-04-30 03:15 -0500
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-05-01 19:04 -1000
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-27 22:58 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-04-28 03:37 -0500
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-28 08:54 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-04-28 12:12 -0500
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-28 21:34 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-04-29 02:27 -0500
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-29 15:09 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-02 21:47 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-04-28 10:49 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-28 21:57 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-05-03 13:28 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-04-28 11:01 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-04-23 14:02 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-25 07:08 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-04-26 10:47 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-04-26 10:58 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-27 22:39 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-04-28 10:43 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2011-05-05 04:39 -0400
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-05-05 04:10 -0500
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2011-04-23 09:53 +0000
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-04-23 14:59 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-23 16:10 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-05-01 23:47 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-05-03 14:23 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-05-04 01:48 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-05-04 05:23 -0500
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial John Passaniti <jpassaniti@ashly.com> - 2011-05-04 11:17 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-05-04 12:03 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-23 23:59 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-05-01 23:48 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-04-22 03:22 -0500
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-22 10:28 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-04-22 12:37 -0500
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial David Kuehling <dvdkhlng@gmx.de> - 2011-04-22 20:07 +0200
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-04-22 18:55 +0000
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-23 23:25 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-04-24 03:27 -0500
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-24 20:20 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-04-25 03:24 -0500
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-04-25 11:55 -1000
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-25 23:45 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-04-25 21:49 -1000
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-04-26 02:39 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-04-26 03:19 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-04-26 10:01 +0000
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-04-23 03:43 -0500
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-23 23:53 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-24 20:27 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-04-25 03:35 -0500
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-26 00:20 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-04-26 04:02 -0500
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-04-26 22:40 +0200
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-04-25 14:16 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-25 23:25 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-04-26 02:47 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-04-26 10:22 +0000
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-04-26 10:45 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2011-04-26 22:19 +0200
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2011-04-27 21:05 +0200
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-22 11:44 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-04-22 11:46 -1000
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Jan Coombs <jan_2011-02@murray-microft.co.uk> - 2011-04-23 08:02 +0100
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-23 23:46 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-24 01:32 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-04-24 08:36 -1000
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-24 19:43 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-24 21:07 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-04-25 11:04 +0000
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-25 23:02 -0700
          Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-20 18:17 -0700
        Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-21 15:19 -0700
          Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-21 15:27 -0700
  Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial gavino <gavcomedy@gmail.com> - 2011-04-21 16:54 -0700
    Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial gavino <gavcomedy@gmail.com> - 2011-04-21 17:09 -0700
    Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-21 17:57 -0700
    Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-21 18:33 -0700

csiph-web