Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Paul Rubin Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Question about checking the stack Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 09:02:40 -0800 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 7 Message-ID: <87egfegggf.fsf@nightsong.com> References: <2015Nov25.135333@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="560a36ee31cc4bcf69e115b311f0cc5c"; logging-data="23847"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/VZLA4+bmAg92taaHF98DB" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:89zwuWhzpoZqRwr/SfxjmGCg+8Y= sha1:g/E4GPAijiItr5vLcYiMZhFTKtQ= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:43761 anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes: > Gforth's debugging engine "gforth" reports the error earlier... > How is that implemented? There is an unmapped page ... Interesting--for some reason I thought only gforth-fast did that and gforth(non-fast) actually had a dynamic check. How badly would an explicit check slow things down? I presume it's been tried.