Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #10807

Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated?

Show all headers | View raw

"BruceMcF" <agila61@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3bf86935-a9f5-4ae2-a9c6-f1d7136d969b@k4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 31, 3:31 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@noavailemail.cmm>
> wrote:
> > Ok, make LOOP and +LOOP "smarter" or DO/?DO-aware ... I had decided
> > against attempting to pair them, in case there was some unforeseen issue
> > leading to a mismatch. But, that works or should. It's simple enough.
>
> Well, you're patching an existing model, so that can complicate things
> compared to designing it to suit ...
>
> Wouldn't a simple state flag variable work? Something like the
> following, if (LOOP) and (+LOOP) include UNLOOP as part of
> their behavior?

...

> > My ?DO is putting two addresses onto the stack, one for the loop and one
> > for the forward branch that needs resolving. Because of ?DO needing two
> > addresses and it "passing" both to LOOP and +LOOP , I changed DO to also
> > put two addresses onto the stack instead of only one.
>
> A variety of ways to implement it, but its probably not needed to have
> DO include a dummy jump that is never taken.

Well, despite simplicity, I decided to not use Ms. Rather's suggestion.
You're correct that a "dummy" jump is not needed, nor wanted by me as a
matter of fact ...  However, Ms. Rather's suggestion adds two branches for
LOOP and +LOOP, while the "dummy" code to DO adds only one branch.
?DO , of course, requires a branch.  I.e., while the DO code is not so
great, the conditional branch code, which is rather large for my system, for
LOOP and LOOP reduced ever so slightly.  AISI, the edge goes to the
convoluted mess ...  DO .. LOOP or DO .. +LOOP gets one branch either
way.  ?DO .. LOOP or ?DO .. +LOOP gets one branch my way and two
branches her way.  At least, for now, it's done that way.


Rod Pemberton

Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-30 18:40 -0400
  Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-30 13:24 -1000
    Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-31 20:56 +0200
      Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-04-01 06:06 -0400
        Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-01 07:57 -1000
        Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-04-02 19:14 +0200
          Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-04-03 06:02 -0400
      Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-31 12:32 -0700
  Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2012-03-30 23:46 +0000
    Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-30 20:58 -1000
      Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-31 03:31 -0400
        Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-31 08:25 -1000
        Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-31 12:02 -0700
          Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-04-03 06:01 -0400
            Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-03 08:38 -1000
              Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-04-04 05:24 -0400
                Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-04 07:44 -1000
                Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-04-05 11:51 +0000
                Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-04-05 21:10 +0200
                Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-04-05 09:33 -0400
                Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-05 08:12 -1000
                Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-04 07:23 -0700
                Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-04-05 09:50 -0400
                Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-05 12:26 -0700
    Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-31 03:29 -0400
      Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2012-03-31 09:58 +0000
        Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? segher <segher@kernel.crashing.org> - 2012-03-31 04:21 -0700
        Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-31 07:19 -0700
      Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-31 15:29 +0200
      Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-31 20:28 -0400
        Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-31 19:48 -0700
      Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-31 07:43 -0700

csiph-web