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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #29932

Re: Detecting low-level words.

Show key headers only | View raw

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 04:10:19 -0400, Elizabeth D. Rather  
<erather@forth.com> wrote:
> On 4/27/14 7:22 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:

>> The idea is some word, like SEE, which emits high-level definitions in
>> terms of the complete sequence of low-level words, not just the  
>> uppermost,
>> high-level definition, like TRACE without execution.  That can then be
>> analysed for optimization.  I would guess that this idea has been around
>> for some time and perhaps even been developed by someone.
>
> The thing is, there are so many ways of factoring and naming these
> things, and so many names even for the same things. Since the early
> 70's, for example, FORTH, Inc. called some of these "behaviors"
> (CREATE), (:), etc., and never found a need for DODOES because of the
> way we compiled DOES>.
>

True.

However, that doesn't mean the ability to emit complete low-level
sequences wouldn't be useful.  Every word in the dictionary
could be emitted as a complete low-level sequence rather easily.
E.g., with all sequences available, one could potentially detect
unoptimized words, or code thrashing, etc.  It could also allow
partial sequences of low-level words to be optimized by a non-Forth
optimizer, e.g., stack sequences.  Or, it could allow for rewriting
definitions to preference one Forth word over another.  It could
also be used for static frequency analysis of the low-level words,
i.e., which low-level words are being used the most.  These would
be the words that need more optimization.  Those should already
be known to the designer, but maybe something unexpected comes
out from the analysis, say perhaps that the implementation of
the branching is excessively complicated, and likely slow.


Rod Pemberton

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

Thread

Detecting low-level words. "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-27 00:23 -0400
  Re: Detecting low-level words. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-04-26 22:56 -1000
  Re: Detecting low-level words. anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-27 12:35 +0000
  Detecting low-level words. Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-04-27 09:29 -0700
    Detecting low-level words. Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-04-27 09:30 -0700
    Re: Detecting low-level words. "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-28 01:22 -0400
      Re: Detecting low-level words. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-04-27 22:10 -1000
        Re: Detecting low-level words. "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-28 05:58 -0400
          Re: Detecting low-level words. foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2014-04-28 19:51 -0700
            Re: Detecting low-level words. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-04-28 18:22 -1000
              Re: Detecting low-level words. Gary Bergstrom <forthprgrmr@gmail.com> - 2014-04-29 20:59 -0700
                Re: Detecting low-level words. AKK <akk@nospam.org> - 2014-04-30 10:50 +0200
                Re: Detecting low-level words. Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@notthis.hetnet.nl> - 2014-04-30 13:23 +0200
                Re: Detecting low-level words. mhx@iae.nl - 2014-04-30 11:06 -0700
                Re: Detecting low-level words. Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@notthis.hetnet.nl> - 2014-04-30 23:15 +0200
          Re: Detecting low-level words. albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-04-30 10:28 +0000
  Re: Detecting low-level words. Stefan Mauerhofer <smauerhofer@androsoft.ch> - 2014-04-27 22:36 -0700

csiph-web