Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #10915
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.forth |
|---|---|
| From | Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
| Subject | Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? |
| Date | 2012-04-05 11:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m208x3.krr@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> (permalink) |
| Organization | Dutch Forth Workshop |
| References | <jl5cp3$tev$1@speranza.aioe.org> <55udnad-9MI23ubSnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@supernews.com> <jlh412$frs$1@speranza.aioe.org> <LI6dnfCxLNT4FeHSnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
In article <LI6dnfCxLNT4FeHSnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@supernews.com>, Elizabeth D. Rather <erather@forth.com> wrote: > >Windows system calls are pretty messy, but that's not Forth's problem. >I'll try to look up the longest definition in a SwiftX kernel and get >back to you on that. I have finally come around looking in detail into Windows system calls. They are actually much less messy than the DOS interrupt 21 was, where you never knew which register were safe, or information was returned in cpu-flags. Now it is more straight forward. You put things on the stack. Then you jump to a subroutine (that is actually in the memory space.) After the call you remove things from the stack. (OK, sometimes they do it for you). The real programming with Windows calls is documentation, the "things" you have to put on the stack. Like a symbolic constant STD_INPUT_HANDLE. We need to know what the actual value is, before it can be used in Forth. EBP, EBX and ESI EDI are preserved and ESP is controlled. This may very well mean that we need not worry about any internal registers used by Forth. > >> I have a list of many issues for C, yet it's still a great language. > >Cheers, >Elizabeth Groetjes Albert -- -- Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
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