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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #57002

Re: wina64 : a 64 bit native MS-Windows Forth in beta

Show all headers | View raw

rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
>On 4/10/2017 2:21 AM, Julian Fondren wrote:
>> On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 1:15:18 AM UTC-5, rickman wrote:
>>> Why can't you just explain what you mean by "native"
>>
>> By "native" he means USING LINUX SYSCALLS.
>
>Great!  That was only 7 words!!!  I knew it was something simple like this.

It also demonstrates that Albert van der Horst uses words like Humpty
Dumpty; he ignores the commonly understood meaning (in c.l.f, "native"
means "without OS"), and uses his private meaning; but he's not alone
in this practice; e.g., Chuck Moore uses "cell" for what's otherwise
known as "word", and "Word" for something else, and OR for what others
call XOR.

>So the distinction is that non-native uses portable code using C 
>libraries and native uses direct operating system calls.  Can someone, 
>in the same simple way, help me understand what the advantage of using 
>OS calls would be?  Seems that C library calls would be portable and OS 
>calls not, so there must be some advantage to using the direct OS calls. 
>  Is there a big speed difference?

There is, of course, the cost of the wrappers, and maybe also the cost
of the indirect call due to dynamic linking; OTOH, he still uses the
slow, old, and universal INT-based system call method, while the
wrappers use SYSENTER/SYSCALL where available (at least one of them
has been available on any new CPU for the last two decades or so), and
which is reportedly faster.  In the end, one would have to measure it.
For some system calls, calling the wrapper avoids entering the kernel
(i.e., significantly faster).
<http://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/linux/lk/lk-4.html> says:

|John Stultz reports on an experiment where he measures gettimeofday()
|and finds 1.67 us for the int 0x80 way, 1.24 us for the sysenter way,
|and 0.88 us for the vsyscall [no kernel].

Looking around a little more, it looks like the source of that comes
from this thread:

<http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail//linux/kernel/0401.3/1199.html>
<http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail//linux/kernel/0401.3/1667.html>

Unfortunately, he does not mention the CPU he used; doing that
experiment again might give different results.

But I don't think that Albert van der Horst cares much about
real-world performance.

>Is there something inherently bad 
>about using C libraries?

I think he has his reasons, but they are not necessarily relevant for
other people.

- anton
-- 
M. Anton Ertl  http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
     New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
   EuroForth 2016: http://www.euroforth.org/ef16/

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

Thread

wina64 : a 64 bit native MS-Windows Forth in beta albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-04-08 09:14 +0200
  Re: wina64 : a 64 bit native MS-Windows Forth in beta albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-04-08 09:29 +0200
  Re: wina64 : a 64 bit native MS-Windows Forth in beta "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-04-08 21:04 +1000
  Re: wina64 : a 64 bit native MS-Windows Forth in beta rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-08 13:26 -0400
    Re: wina64 : a 64 bit native MS-Windows Forth in beta albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-04-08 23:44 +0200
      Re: wina64 : a 64 bit native MS-Windows Forth in beta rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-09 01:13 -0400
        Re: wina64 : a 64 bit native MS-Windows Forth in beta albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-04-09 12:43 +0200
          Re: wina64 : a 64 bit native MS-Windows Forth in beta minforth@arcor.de - 2017-04-09 04:31 -0700
            Re: wina64 : a 64 bit native MS-Windows Forth in beta john <anon@example.com> - 2017-04-09 13:13 +0100
            Re: wina64 : a 64 bit native MS-Windows Forth in beta albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-04-09 14:43 +0200
              Re: wina64 : a 64 bit native MS-Windows Forth in beta minforth@arcor.de - 2017-04-09 08:56 -0700
                Re: wina64 : a 64 bit native MS-Windows Forth in beta foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2017-04-09 09:44 -0700
                Re: wina64 : a 64 bit native MS-Windows Forth in beta minforth@arcor.de - 2017-04-09 22:07 -0700
                Re: wina64 : a 64 bit native MS-Windows Forth in beta albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-04-10 12:40 +0200
          Re: wina64 : a 64 bit native MS-Windows Forth in beta rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 02:15 -0400
            Re: wina64 : a 64 bit native MS-Windows Forth in beta Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-04-09 23:21 -0700
              Re: wina64 : a 64 bit native MS-Windows Forth in beta Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-10 01:40 -0700
                Re: wina64 : a 64 bit native MS-Windows Forth in beta Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 04:15 -0700
                Re: wina64 : a 64 bit native MS-Windows Forth in beta albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-04-10 13:49 +0200
              Re: wina64 : a 64 bit native MS-Windows Forth in beta rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 10:05 -0400
                Re: wina64 : a 64 bit native MS-Windows Forth in beta anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-04-10 14:27 +0000
                Re: wina64 : a 64 bit native MS-Windows Forth in beta albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-04-10 20:05 +0200
                Re: wina64 : a 64 bit native MS-Windows Forth in beta minforth@arcor.de - 2017-04-10 14:26 -0700

csiph-web