Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Mecrisp 2.1.6 ARM Linux problem
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 12:13:40 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <87h9k4ef7v.fsf@jester.gateway.pace.com>
References: <87poyxdx8p.fsf@nightsong.com> <2015Nov26.102746@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <n386ls$29r$1@dont-email.me> <87lh9he398.fsf@jester.gateway.pace.com> <n3fkj8$a6q$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="d09d25b6b873a1567c8bb21cd9fda25b"; logging-data="16893"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/0ImFUyGR4aaEY+iI+Wr7L"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:N23OSr5msjm6Fudp+Nch76M9KZE= sha1:ZbFUNcXp+tEdgnRkhlbFak0SSeo=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:43942

Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes:
> I'm certainly more interested in getting 0.8.0 stable.  If you get the same 
> problems with the snapshot, please report.

OK I'll try.

> Which benchmark did you use? onebench.fs? 4.38s for gforth onebench.fs 
> sounds reasonable.  I've 4.64s on my board, and 2.80s for gforth-fast.

No the benchmark was just the simple loop I mentioned earlier:

    1e8 f>s constant nn
    : test nn 0 do i drop loop ;
    test bye

> Not being able to build gforth-fast indicates problems (e.g. with the 
> register allocation), and I really hate it to release a small bugfix for 
> every single GCC release.  I can do that with the snapshots...

Hmm I didn't examine the error messages.