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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #49532

Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style

From rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
Newsgroups comp.lang.forth
Subject Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style
Date 2016-07-26 11:23 -0400
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <nn7v91$nt$2@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References (6 earlier) <nm07sh$n94$2@dont-email.me> <9a73adb8-c83b-4ef1-b504-9507239577f3@googlegroups.com> <26ea96b4-07db-4dbe-89f9-935c3e8bae28@googlegroups.com> <nn6kh3$sa4$1@dont-email.me> <117b3726-b027-4e64-ac08-2aedb0d0f880@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 7/26/2016 10:34 AM, jim.brakefield@ieee.org wrote:
> On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 10:13:41 PM UTC-5, rickman wrote:
>> On 7/25/2016 10:56 PM, foxaudioresearch@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 1:51:21 PM UTC-4, Mark Wills wrote:
>>>> On Monday, 11 July 2016 14:44:51 UTC+1, rickman  wrote:
>>>>> On 7/11/2016 4:59 AM, Mark Wills wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, 11 July 2016 03:53:53 UTC+1, rickman  wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/10/2016 6:00 PM, Mark Wills wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 10 July 2016 16:50:08 UTC+1, foxaudio...@gmail.com  wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Sure have Mark. It's very nice.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am porting my cross compiler and my variation of camel Forth to Ti99. I always wanted TiForth to hold Tos is a register.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The cycle count looks like it will be faster.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Boy I like that TmS9900 instruction set better than x86.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just needs a stack pointer or 2 in Hardware.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> B
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, the TMS9900 instruction set is by the nicest I've used on any processor
>>>>>>>> over the years. The 68K comes a close second for me :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Funny, I still have a couple of TMS99x computers around here somewhere.
>>>>>>> One is a Technico 9900 single board computer that uses EPROMs.  Another
>>>>>>> is one I designed using a 9995 built with wire wrap.  I wanted to use
>>>>>>> the 9995 to control an IBM Selectric I got at a something-fest, but it
>>>>>>> was too worn out to print reliably.  Seems those mechanicals don't last
>>>>>>> forever.  Both CPU boards are sitting in my basement next to an old 8008
>>>>>>> multiple board computer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rick C
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The 9995s and (in-particular) the 9900s are getting quite valuable now. The
>>>>>> 9995 is a much simpler chip to work with. IIRC it needs no supporting chippery,
>>>>>> whereas the 9900 at least requires a 4-phase clock. Their register to memory
>>>>>> architecture is beautiful. If only they had a hardware stack! (Later variants
>>>>>> of the 99xx family did indeed have hardware stacks and a whole raft of
>>>>>> additional instructions).
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would you want a hardware stack?  That would be limited in size and
>>>>> likely function.  The 8008 predecessor to the 8080 has a small hardware
>>>>> stack.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or do you mean a dedicated stack pointer in the chip?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Rick C
>>>>
>>>> Yes, just a stack pointer, and MOV instructions to get push/pop.
>>>>
>>>> It's fairly simple to anyway. Suppose R0 is your stack pointer register:
>>>>
>>>> LI R0,$E000 - stack is at $E000
>>>>
>>>> to push data:
>>>> DECT R0 - decrement stack pointer by two (16 bit word i.e. two bytes)
>>>> MOV Rx,*R0 - move some register (Rx) to the memory addressed by R0
>>>>
>>>> to pop:
>>>> MOV *R0+,Rx  - move data at address addressed by R0 to Rx, and increase R0 by two
>>>
>>> I always feel cramped with the single level sub-routine call linked in R11.
>>> (Branch and link)
>>> Although it sucks up way too many cycles on these machines, I created a macros
>>> in Forth assembler that let me have what I want when I need it.
>>>
>>> \ PUSH & POP on both stacks
>>> : PUSH,         ( src -- )  SP DECT,  *SP   MOV, ;
>>> : POP,          ( dst -- )  *SP+      SWAP  MOV, ;
>>>
>>> : RPUSH,        ( src -- ) RP DECT,  *RP   MOV,  ;
>>> : RPOP,         ( dst -- ) *RP+      SWAP  MOV,  ;
>>>
>>> Then I extended branch & link.
>>>
>>> : CALL,         ( dst -- ) R11 RPUSH,  ( addr) BL,   R11 RPOP, ;
>>>
>>> And return remains the same:
>>> : RT   *R11 B, ;
>>>
>>> If only it was in hardware...
>>
>> These days a TMS9900 processor could be done in an FPGA and run much
>> faster than the original.  It could also look ahead at the instruction
>> sequences you use and do them in a single instruction (even though it
>> would still need to fetch it all to do the lookahead).  This could
>> maintain machine code level compatibility and work much faster.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Rick C
>
> ]>These days a TMS9900 processor could be done in an FPGA and run much
>> faster than the original.
>
> Check out neo430 and openmsp430 at opencores.org (in processor section).
> neo430 can achieve a clock rate of 264MHz and openmsp430 116 MHz
> (different implementations, so speed not directly proportional to fmax)

Not sure what you mean by "speed not directly proportional to fmax".  Do 
you mean the speed of running code does not match the clock speed? 
Everyone should be aware of that, but I guess many assume the same 
instruction set will have a fixed correspondence with the frequency.  As 
you say, that is not universally true.

-- 

Rick C

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

Thread

Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2016-07-08 17:44 -0700
  Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-09 04:27 +0000
  Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-07-09 10:30 -0700
    Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-07-09 21:56 -0700
      Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style mhx@iae.nl - 2016-07-10 00:30 -0700
        Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style mhx@iae.nl - 2016-07-10 00:34 -0700
          Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2016-07-10 09:10 -0700
      Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style endlessboomcapitalism@gmail.com - 2016-07-12 18:55 -0700
  Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 01:39 -0700
    Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2016-07-10 08:50 -0700
      Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 15:00 -0700
        Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 22:53 -0400
          Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 01:59 -0700
            Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 09:44 -0400
              Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 10:51 -0700
                Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 15:26 -0400
                Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 15:18 -0700
                Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2016-07-25 19:56 -0700
                Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 23:13 -0400
                Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style jim.brakefield@ieee.org - 2016-07-26 07:34 -0700
                Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 11:23 -0400
                Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style jim.brakefield@ieee.org - 2016-07-26 13:18 -0700
                Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 18:14 -0400
                Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 02:43 -0700
                Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 10:24 -0400
                Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 02:46 -0700
                Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 10:26 -0400
                Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 02:53 -0700
                Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2016-07-27 08:32 -0700
                Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2016-07-27 09:04 -0700
                Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 02:05 -0700
                Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2016-07-28 06:27 -0700
                Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 03:01 -0700
                Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 02:28 -0400
            Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 13:05 -0400
              Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 10:47 -0700
        Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-07-11 08:50 -0500
          Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-11 08:23 -0700
            Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-07-11 11:48 -0500
              Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-07-11 12:16 -0500
                Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 10:38 -0700
                Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-07-11 13:32 -0500
                Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-07-11 12:45 -0500
                Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 11:49 -0700
                Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-07-12 05:02 -0500
              Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-11 14:22 -0700
                Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-07-11 16:31 -0500
                Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 15:31 -0400
                Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-07-12 15:55 -0700
                Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 22:48 -0400
                Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-08-10 01:54 -0700
                Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 19:32 -0400
                Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-08-28 22:55 -0700
                Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-29 00:34 -0700
            Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-07-11 11:58 -0700
          Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-07-12 15:59 -0700
            Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2016-07-26 00:40 +0000
              Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-07-25 21:16 -1000
                Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2016-08-21 23:04 +0000
              Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-07-26 03:34 -0500
                Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2016-08-21 23:13 +0000
              Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-07-26 16:51 +0000
                Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 13:51 -0400
                Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2016-08-21 23:38 +0000
                Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-08-22 12:51 +0000
            Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 22:50 -0400
            Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 16:32 -0700
              Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 10:19 -0400
                Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-07-27 09:05 -1000
        Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-07-12 15:51 -0700
          Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 03:34 -0700
            Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 22:51 -0400
      Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 01:56 -0700
        Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2016-07-11 08:03 -0700

csiph-web