Re: RTX2000 optimization

From	rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.forth
Subject	Re: RTX2000 optimization
Date	2012-10-25 18:58 -0400
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<k6cg75$o2d$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <k64svk$njr$1@speranza.aioe.org> <k672lj$82o$1@dont-email.me> <k68npd$9f7$1@speranza.aioe.org> <k69gf5$hic$1@dont-email.me> <k6ag6q$m45$1@speranza.aioe.org>

Show all headers | View raw

On 10/25/2012 12:50 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> "rickman"<gnuarm@gmail.com>  wrote in message
> news:k69gf5$hic$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 10/24/2012 8:47 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> ...
>
>>> For temporary reasons, most of my Forth stack operators, like DUP SWAP
>>> etc, aren't currently low-level Forth "primitives".  They're implemented
>>> in high-level Forth using an even lower set of actual stack
>>> "primitives", which I'll call sub-operators for this thread.  These
>>> sub-operators could be considered to be "stack assembly instructions"
>>> for my Forth.  Currently, only>R and R>   are actually "primitives"
>>> coded in C.  Eventually, DUP DROP SWAP OVER will be actual
>>> low-level Forth "primitives", as they once were.
>>
>> Coded in 'C'?  Perhaps I missed something.  I was talking about a Forth
>> like CPU.  Are you referring to a Forth compiler on a PC?
>>
>
> Yes.  You're talking about a Forth like CPU.  I'm talking about my Forth
> interpreter in C.  I'm attempting to discuss similarities which are useful.

Ok, now that I get the context, what is the point exactly?  Why do you 
only code the lesser number of primitives when you will eventually code 
more words as primitives.  I'm not following what point you are trying 
to make.  Is this an exercise where you hope to learn how best to 
optimize primitives?


>>> So, a word like OVER can be coded in many ways.  I have 22 different
>>> definitions just for OVER in a list, and one can construct many more.
>>> E.g.,
>>>
>>>    : OVER>R DUP R>   SWAP ;
>>>    : OVER 1 PICK ;
>>>    : OVER SWAP TUCK ;
>>>    : OVER SWAP DUP -ROT ;
>>>    : OVER NUP SWAP ;
>>> etc.
>>
>> Yes it can, but why?  Over is a very simple construct for either a Forth
>> like CPU or a Forth compiler.
>
> If you implement it as a single instruction, that's great.  But, you're not
> going to fit all Forth words into your instruction set.  So, some words are
> going to be made up of multiple Forth words comprised of multiple
> instructions.  This was just an example of how I went about optimizing such
> a sequence.

I'm still not following your point.  OVER is a very logical word to 
implement as a primitive.  It is used often enough and requires little 
or nothing in the way of extra hardware for a CPU design and should be a 
single instruction on most existing CPUs.


> Also, some Forth stack words don't fit most CPU's well.  For example, some
> words shift a portion of the data on the stack, e.g., ROT TUCK.  Stack
> shifts are not well suited to most processors.  Stacks can push or pop or
> use other instructions to direct reads and writes, but shifts require a copy
> routine.

Absolutely.  Many Forth words won't map well to either hardware or to 
any given software implementation.


>>> Which definition you choose affects how fast OVER executes and depends
>>> on what operations you have available and on how fast each of those
>>> operations are.
>>>
>>> E.g., if>R>R DUP SWAP and -ROT are all very fast machine instructions
>>> for your processor, then ">R DUP R>   SWAP" and "SWAP DUP -ROT"
>>> should be fast sequences.  And, one sequence will be faster than the
>>> other, depending on how fast each instruction is.  But, if -ROT is not a
>>> machine instruction, e.g., perhaps coded as "ROT ROT" or "SWAP>R
>>> SWAP R>", or -ROT is a very slow machine instruction, then "SWAP
>>> DUP -ROT" is more expensive than ">R DUP R>   SWAP".
>>
>> I don't follow that a four instruction sequence should be "fast" in any
>> real sense.  I don't follow at all why you would have -ROT as a
>> primitive and not OVER.
>>
>
> You're going to be implementing instructions for your processor.  Which
> instructions you implement and which you don't implement affects how each
> Forth word is coded.  That affects their speed.

Ok.  For instructions I picked functions that were -

1) Basic enough to be implemented in one clock cycle
2) Were good primitives in a Forth sense
3) Were high on the list of use frequency according to Koopman's book

not necessarily in that priority.

I did not have a one to one mapping of instructions to existing Forth 
words, but many instructions were existing Forth words or very similar. 
  Some exceptions were adding the top elements of the return stack and 
adding the top of data stack to the return stack.  These are used to 
control looping, although they may change if I return to working on this 
design.


>>> The instructions also need to be balanced acrossed many Forth words.
>>> Originally, I had the 2xxx series words defined in terms of the simpler
>>> stack operators, like SWAP DUP etc.  When I converted to sub-operators,
>>> the number of operations per definition dropped dramatically for some
>>> of the 2xxx definitions.  Since the sub-operators are primitives, some
>>> of the 2xxx definitions became faster.  However, after converting all of
>>> the simpler stack operators to sub-operators, a few of the non-primitive
>>> simple stack operators ended up with more operations per definition.
>>> So some words became much faster, while others became slightly slower.
>>> And, the former primitives became real slow, but they'll be converted
>>> back eventually.
>>
>> Not sure why you are looking at this.  If you want to optimize the
>> implementation, why not look at what is used most often and start by
>> optimizing those operators?  That is why I went to Koopman's book.  Not
>> much return on optimizing things that aren't used so much.
>
> There is no quarantee that the instruction frequencies will be the most used
> in the code that will be run.  It merely demonstrates which was the most
> used in the code that was sampled.

Then you have no basis for picking any words for optimization.  No 
matter what words you optimize, if the application doesn't use those 
instructions very much the optimization won't be effective for that app. 
  That is why I rely on data like Koopman's book, it draws on a range of 
apps.


> I.e., let's say I used Koopman's dynamic instruction frequencies to design a
> processor.  TUCK isn't in the list.  So, I didn't put any effort into
> optimizing TUCK.  TUCK is really slow and long sequence for my imaginary
> processor.  Later, I fall in "love" with TUCK.  So, I begin to use it
> everywhere in my imaginary Forth code.  Will my code be fast?  No.
>
> The frequencies are only useful on the sampled code and similar code.  If
> you're not using a code optimizer, then you (or your future users) are going
> to have to selectively preference the optimized instructions over the
> unoptimized.

Ok, I am all ears.  If you have a better idea for how to pick primitive 
instructions to implement on a dual stack CPU design, I would love to 
hear about it.  The thing above about balancing across multiple words 
has the same flaw of only applying to some applications as any other 
method of selection.

Rick

Thread

RTX2000 optimization Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-10-22 08:53 -0700
  Re: RTX2000 optimization Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-10-22 11:21 -0500
  Re: RTX2000 optimization visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-10-22 09:56 -0700
    Re: RTX2000 optimization Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-10-22 12:10 -0700
      Re: RTX2000 optimization visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-10-22 12:55 -0700
      Re: RTX2000 optimization Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2012-10-22 22:02 +0200
      Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-22 16:50 -0400
        Re: RTX2000 optimization "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-22 21:52 -0400
          Re: RTX2000 optimization Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-10-22 22:03 -0700
            Re: RTX2000 optimization Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-10-23 03:19 -0500
              Re: RTX2000 optimization vandys@vsta.org - 2012-10-23 17:54 +0000
                Re: RTX2000 optimization Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-10-24 08:16 -0700
          Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-23 17:19 -0400
            Re: RTX2000 optimization "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-24 06:56 -0400
              Re: RTX2000 optimization anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-10-24 12:26 +0000
              Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-24 15:25 -0400
                Re: RTX2000 optimization "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-25 00:30 -0400
                Re: RTX2000 optimization Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-24 22:10 -0700
                Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-25 16:43 -0400
                Re: RTX2000 optimization Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-26 17:55 +0200
                Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-26 19:44 -0400
                Re: RTX2000 optimization Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-27 02:17 +0200
                Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-26 23:01 -0400
                Re: RTX2000 optimization Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-27 22:18 +0200
                Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-27 19:19 -0400
                Re: RTX2000 optimization "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-28 04:21 -0400
                Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-28 14:36 -0400
                Re: RTX2000 optimization "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-29 19:06 -0400
                Re: RTX2000 optimization Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-10-30 02:07 -0700
                Re: RTX2000 optimization "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-30 09:36 -0400
                Re: RTX2000 optimization Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-10-30 08:09 -0700
                Re: RTX2000 optimization "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-30 19:14 -0400
                Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-30 18:50 -0400
                Re: RTX2000 optimization daveyrotten <danw8804@gmail.com> - 2012-10-31 07:37 -0700
                Re: RTX2000 optimization stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-10-31 15:27 +0000
                Re: RTX2000 optimization daveyrotten <danw8804@gmail.com> - 2012-10-31 08:59 -0700
                Re: RTX2000 optimization Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-10-31 11:18 -0500
                Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-31 13:49 -0400
                Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-31 13:43 -0400
                Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-31 12:03 -0400
                Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-10-31 09:05 -0700
                Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] daveyrotten <danw8804@gmail.com> - 2012-10-31 09:06 -0700
                Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-31 09:25 -0700
                Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] danw8804@gmail.com - 2012-10-31 09:38 -0700
                Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-31 14:30 -0400
                Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-31 14:27 -0400
                Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-31 12:01 -0700
                Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-31 16:31 -0400
                Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-31 20:33 -0700
                Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-11-01 14:05 -0400
                Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-01 11:23 -0700
                Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-11-01 14:31 -0400
                Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-02 22:11 -0700
                Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-11-03 12:50 -0400
                Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-03 10:42 -0700
                Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-11-03 13:59 -0400
                Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-03 12:10 -0700
                Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-11-03 15:42 -0400
                Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-03 15:56 -0700
                Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-11-03 20:53 -0400
                Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-11-04 11:10 +0000
                Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-04 22:58 -0800
                Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-11-05 15:29 +0100
                Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-11-05 14:40 +0000
                Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-11-05 11:36 -0500
                Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-05 09:02 -0800
                Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-11-05 15:22 -0500
                Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-05 12:56 -0800
                Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-11-06 12:22 -0500
                Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-06 09:29 -0800
                Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-11-06 12:53 -0500
                Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-06 10:00 -0800
                Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-11-06 08:04 -1000
                Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-11-06 13:37 -0500
                Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-11-05 21:06 +0100
                Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-11-05 15:29 -0500
                Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-11-06 16:28 +0100
                Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-11-06 12:50 -0500
                Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-07 20:29 -0800
                Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2012-11-04 10:40 +0000
                Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-11-01 21:26 +0100
                Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-01 13:44 -0700
                Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-11-02 04:03 -0400
                Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] David Schultz <abuse@127.0.0.1> - 2012-11-04 17:17 -0600
                Re: RTX2000 optimization Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-11-02 12:48 -0700
                Re: RTX2000 optimization "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-11-02 10:25 -1000
                Re: RTX2000 optimization Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-02 19:54 -0700
                Re: RTX2000 optimization Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-11-03 17:47 +0100
                Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-11-03 14:05 -0400
                Re: RTX2000 optimization anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-11-05 11:55 +0000
                Re: RTX2000 optimization Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-03 19:20 -0700
                Re: RTX2000 optimization mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-11-04 16:08 +0200
                Re: RTX2000 optimization mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-11-04 17:14 +0200
                Re: RTX2000 optimization Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-11-04 18:40 +0100
                Re: RTX2000 optimization Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-04 09:36 -0600
                Re: RTX2000 optimization Andy Valencia <vandys@vsta.org> - 2012-11-04 23:49 +0000
                Re: RTX2000 optimization Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-10-31 12:11 -0700
                Re: RTX2000 optimization "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-31 20:08 -0400
                Re: RTX2000 optimization Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-11-01 10:59 -0700
                Re: RTX2000 optimization daveyrotten <danw8804@gmail.com> - 2012-11-01 12:12 -0700
                Re: RTX2000 optimization daveyrotten <danw8804@gmail.com> - 2012-11-01 12:14 -0700
                Re: RTX2000 optimization Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-11-02 10:51 -0700
                Re: RTX2000 optimization daveyrotten <danw8804@gmail.com> - 2012-11-02 11:28 -0700
                Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-11-01 14:58 -0400
                Re: RTX2000 optimization Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-28 14:45 +0100
                Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-28 15:04 -0400
                Re: RTX2000 optimization Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-28 21:09 +0100
                Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-28 16:59 -0400
                Re: RTX2000 optimization albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2012-10-28 07:59 +0000
                Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-28 15:06 -0400
                Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-25 16:35 -0400
        Re: RTX2000 optimization anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-10-23 12:44 +0000
          Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-23 17:32 -0400
  Re: RTX2000 optimization daveyrotten <danw8804@gmail.com> - 2012-10-22 13:54 -0700
    Re: RTX2000 optimization visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-10-22 14:14 -0700
      Re: RTX2000 optimization daveyrotten <danw8804@gmail.com> - 2012-10-22 14:26 -0700
        Re: RTX2000 optimization visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-10-22 16:00 -0700
  Re: RTX2000 optimization "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-22 21:51 -0400
    Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-23 17:36 -0400
      Re: RTX2000 optimization "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-24 08:47 -0400
        Re: RTX2000 optimization Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-10-24 06:36 -0700
          Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-24 15:33 -0400
            Re: RTX2000 optimization Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-10-25 04:54 -0700
              Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-25 17:35 -0400
                Re: RTX2000 optimization Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-25 15:27 -0700
                Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-25 19:10 -0400
                Re: RTX2000 optimization Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-25 18:34 -0700
                Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-26 19:03 -0400
                Re: RTX2000 optimization "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-26 19:56 -0400
              Re: RTX2000 optimization Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-26 18:34 +0200
                Re: RTX2000 optimization Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-26 22:27 +0200
                Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-26 19:27 -0400
                Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-26 19:17 -0400
                Re: RTX2000 optimization "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-26 19:44 -0400
                Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-26 19:59 -0400
          Re: RTX2000 optimization "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-25 00:42 -0400
            Re: RTX2000 optimization "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-25 00:55 -0400
            Re: RTX2000 optimization Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-10-25 04:49 -0700
          addressable stack, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-11-05 14:04 -0500
        Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-24 15:44 -0400
          Re: RTX2000 optimization "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-25 00:50 -0400
            Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-25 18:58 -0400
              Re: RTX2000 optimization Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-25 16:07 -0700
                Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-25 19:20 -0400
              Re: RTX2000 optimization "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-26 20:57 -0400
                Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-27 15:43 -0400
                Re: RTX2000 optimization "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-28 05:01 -0400
                Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-28 15:23 -0400
                Re: RTX2000 optimization "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-29 19:32 -0400
                Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-30 19:00 -0400
                Re: RTX2000 optimization "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-31 01:23 -0400
                Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-31 14:56 -0400
  Re: RTX2000 optimization visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-10-22 19:44 -0700
    Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-23 17:47 -0400
      Re: RTX2000 optimization visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-10-23 16:00 -0700
        Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-23 21:07 -0400
          Re: RTX2000 optimization visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-10-23 18:44 -0700
            Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-24 16:03 -0400
              Re: RTX2000 optimization Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-24 13:15 -0700
                Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-24 16:25 -0400
              Re: RTX2000 optimization Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-26 03:15 +0200
      Re: RTX2000 optimization Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-10-24 09:55 -0700
        Re: RTX2000 optimization Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-24 10:04 -0700
          Re: RTX2000 optimization Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-10-24 12:00 -0700
            Re: RTX2000 optimization Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-24 23:24 -0700
              Re: RTX2000 optimization Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-10-25 09:26 -0700
                Re: RTX2000 optimization Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-25 10:39 -0700
                Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-25 19:35 -0400
                Re: RTX2000 optimization Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-26 18:26 +0200
          Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-24 16:10 -0400
            Re: RTX2000 optimization Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-24 13:21 -0700
  Re: RTX2000 optimization stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-10-23 10:52 +0000

csiph-web