Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #35035 > unrolled thread
| Started by | visualforth@rocketmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-12-19 15:59 -0800 |
| Last post | 2014-12-23 15:16 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 340 — 34 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-12-19 15:59 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-20 08:36 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-20 03:40 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-20 13:57 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-21 04:38 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-21 21:38 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-21 16:32 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-22 03:56 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mhx@iae.nl - 2014-12-22 00:53 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-12-22 13:43 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 02:57 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 03:38 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 02:42 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-12-22 11:42 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-12-22 07:51 -0500
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-12-22 15:59 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-12-23 11:17 -0500
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 02:57 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 06:09 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-12-23 12:44 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 13:12 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-23 07:57 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-23 10:31 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-23 12:27 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-23 15:04 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-24 19:28 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-25 02:43 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-12-25 20:36 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-25 11:43 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-12-25 20:40 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-26 13:37 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-12-26 11:40 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-05 19:33 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-05 21:31 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-05 21:33 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-01-06 10:24 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-06 10:13 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-01-07 00:41 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-06 14:59 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-06 11:53 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-06 10:16 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 18:56 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-23 12:31 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-25 18:44 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2014-12-25 12:46 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-26 14:08 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2014-12-27 09:48 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-27 12:05 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-12-29 13:08 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 20:13 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 20:21 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-23 12:39 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-23 15:16 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-23 17:40 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-24 05:34 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-23 21:12 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-24 12:40 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-24 09:40 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-25 08:52 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-25 09:18 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-25 11:14 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-24 12:53 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-24 09:15 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-25 12:07 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-25 11:00 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-24 03:26 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-12-25 19:45 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-24 05:31 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-24 03:28 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-24 11:36 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 22:08 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-23 14:27 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 22:58 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-23 15:38 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-25 02:37 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-24 19:16 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-25 06:30 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-24 22:49 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> - 2014-12-25 07:15 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-24 23:32 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> - 2014-12-25 10:39 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> - 2014-12-25 10:56 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-26 01:21 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-25 09:06 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-25 09:39 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-25 21:15 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-25 23:34 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-25 17:09 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-26 02:22 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-25 17:49 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-26 05:22 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-26 14:00 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-26 16:13 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-27 09:50 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-27 04:41 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-27 10:21 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-30 11:50 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-31 15:02 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-26 03:28 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> - 2014-12-26 10:35 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-26 14:54 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2014-12-26 16:36 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-26 21:19 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-27 10:17 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-27 12:09 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-01 21:07 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-02 11:42 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-01-02 12:45 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-02 23:42 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-04 14:05 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-06 03:51 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-05 20:02 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-05 19:25 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-07 14:52 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-09 08:04 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-08 21:14 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-09 16:25 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-09 09:10 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-10 14:35 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-10 20:51 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@notthis.hetnet.nl> - 2015-01-11 11:29 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2015-01-11 03:46 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@notthis.hetnet.nl> - 2015-01-11 15:58 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-11 23:01 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2015-01-11 16:19 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-11 16:50 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-12 08:53 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-12 08:28 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-12 11:10 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-01-11 11:30 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-11 16:56 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-11 19:47 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-12 08:03 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2015-01-11 23:44 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-12 09:05 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-01-12 10:56 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-01-31 10:37 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2015-01-09 23:01 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-10 14:43 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2015-01-11 23:45 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-12 09:09 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-09 10:52 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-10 15:31 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-05 23:34 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-05 22:22 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-06 08:41 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-06 10:30 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-06 13:37 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-06 13:02 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-06 15:31 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-01-07 01:15 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-06 15:23 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-06 19:25 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-06 17:52 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-06 21:15 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-06 19:30 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2015-01-07 05:07 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-07 15:08 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2015-01-07 12:41 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-07 11:09 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-07 08:02 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-07 11:52 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2015-01-09 14:14 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-09 20:04 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-10 20:57 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2015-01-11 08:31 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-11 19:59 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2015-01-11 22:51 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-15 22:34 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2015-01-16 08:56 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-01-07 01:54 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-01-07 12:33 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-07 14:25 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-07 16:37 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-07 15:02 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2015-01-07 06:00 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-07 08:49 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2015-01-07 10:06 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-07 18:09 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2015-01-07 10:16 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-10 16:48 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-08 16:25 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-08 08:50 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mhx@iae.nl - 2015-01-07 10:37 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-08 16:32 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2015-01-09 18:28 -0500
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2015-01-07 07:31 -0500
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-07 16:24 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-01-08 14:02 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-08 09:26 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-01-08 17:44 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-08 11:01 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-07 17:18 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-07 09:44 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-08 09:31 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-11 03:37 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-07 15:21 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-07 18:19 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-08 09:40 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-08 14:49 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-08 17:02 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2015-01-06 04:42 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-06 08:13 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-09 02:52 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-08 18:34 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-08 20:29 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-08 21:30 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-09 11:14 -0800
Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-09 22:18 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-10 03:15 +0100
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-09 20:56 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-12 03:02 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-12 10:14 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-10 11:39 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-13 18:08 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-13 20:04 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-14 02:43 +0100
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-14 13:34 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-15 02:03 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-15 12:03 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-15 06:47 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-10 19:15 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-10 12:52 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-10 19:05 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-11 09:28 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-11 14:45 -1000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-12 18:28 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-12 17:12 -1000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-12 20:55 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-01-13 03:48 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-13 06:05 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2015-01-13 06:34 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-13 06:51 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-01-13 08:03 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-13 19:18 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-01-13 08:26 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-13 09:54 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-13 17:35 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-13 18:19 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-14 21:03 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-14 21:07 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-15 01:06 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-01-15 00:52 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-15 01:17 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-15 17:35 -1000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 20:38 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-16 10:47 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-16 20:47 +0100
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-01-16 14:37 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-01-16 17:26 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-17 03:03 +0100
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-13 10:40 -1000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-13 19:04 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-11 23:24 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-09 18:09 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2015-01-09 09:31 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-09 11:16 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-09 22:38 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-16 13:44 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-17 02:39 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-17 13:37 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-17 18:44 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-18 12:57 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-18 22:48 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-19 03:10 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-18 18:41 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-17 11:45 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-17 17:57 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-18 14:57 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2015-01-19 00:49 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-19 15:04 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! beeflo <beeflobill@gmail.com> - 2015-01-19 16:24 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-20 03:26 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-01-20 04:23 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-23 21:42 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-20 20:05 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-20 07:10 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-01-20 12:04 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-20 16:11 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-20 20:40 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Jan Coombs <Jan-54 <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com>> - 2015-01-20 23:29 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-20 20:00 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-21 01:55 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-22 00:05 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-01-19 07:42 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-06 09:50 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2015-01-06 04:38 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-09 21:34 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-09 23:28 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "hughaguilar96@yahoo.com" <hughaguilar96@gmail.com> - 2015-01-10 11:10 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-11 00:49 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-12 22:42 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-12 17:33 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2015-01-12 19:17 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-12 21:06 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2015-01-13 04:08 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-13 15:00 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-13 18:45 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-13 21:12 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-16 20:41 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-21 20:42 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-21 23:19 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-26 20:20 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2015-01-05 10:31 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2014-12-27 07:16 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-27 13:08 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-27 10:54 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2014-12-27 11:01 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-27 21:25 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2014-12-29 05:20 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-01-04 11:53 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mhx@iae.nl - 2015-01-04 05:02 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-01-04 08:00 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2014-12-26 15:00 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-26 13:35 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-25 10:55 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> - 2014-12-25 07:08 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-24 23:27 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> - 2014-12-25 10:34 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-25 09:47 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> - 2014-12-25 19:44 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-25 11:00 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> - 2014-12-25 12:01 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-25 16:03 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> - 2014-12-25 17:20 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2014-12-26 21:53 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-08 22:30 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-12-25 20:00 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-25 08:36 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-12-25 19:36 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-05 19:09 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-23 15:35 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-05 19:16 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-08 15:51 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-21 16:02 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-12-22 10:51 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2014-12-22 05:47 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-12-22 09:10 -0500
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-12-22 15:23 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-23 15:16 +0000
Page 14 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 Next page →
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-17 13:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2015Jan17.143708@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #35857 |
Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes:
>Actually, you can write a test program that simply does "return a+b;", and
>pass it ample of test data, and then prove that this "a+b" does wrapv. The
>unjustified assumption is that of the compiler writher who thinks his
>architecture is undefined on overflows. It isn't. The code the compiler
>emits (without optimization) is 100% well-defined on overflow.
Actually, at least one version of gcc miscompiles "x<x-1" even with
optimization off. So "without optimization" does not quite cover it.
OTOH, if you ask it "x<x-y", and get the values x and y from a source
the compiler does not see (say, input data), it will exhibit modulo
arithmetic behaviour, even with -O3.
>The Gforth team uses GCC extensions, which makes Gforth a non-portable
>program. We do so for at least two reasons: a) performance, b) promoting
>free software (you can't compile Gforth with proprietary compilers;
Actually, really only a). E.g., we have a workaround in Gforth for a
breakage of HP/UX's make; we did not tell HP/UX users that we require
GNU make. If we could have gotten decent performance of compilers
other then gcc, we would have supported them.
[Paul Rubin:]
>> I notice most of the support in the comments comes from embedded
>> developers. I think at the time C was first standardized, there may
>> have been an unnoticed divide between the embedded programmers and the
>> HPC programmers
When C was first standardized (late 1980s), neither embedded
programmers nor supercomputer (HPC) people played a big role for C,
and if they played a big role in the standardization, it was a hostile
takeover. C was too big for the embedded systems of the time;
embedded systems programmers programmed in assembly language, some in
Forth. C was too slow for HPC (the dominating compiler was PCC); and
the HPC people had a language (Fortran) and compilers and libraries
that were much more adapted to their needs, why should they be
interested in C?
C was the systems programming language of Unix, and it spread to
adjacent realms because it did not have some of the limitations
("safety features") as standard Pascal, a popular language at the time.
I read some articles by P.J.Plauger, who was on the ANSI C committee,
and explained some of the stuff going on there in the articles. He
never mentioned undefining behaviour for optimization in these
articles, and I did not read anything about it until at least a decade
later. Given the lack of optimization in the compilers of the day
(PCC variants), it is highly unlikely to have played a role.
>I don't think we can
>write an unfriendly Forth, because that would be non-standard.
I think that people with the appropriate mindset could write a hostile
Forth and stay within the standard. Lots of things are explicit
ambiguous conditions, others are not defined in other ways. For
integer overflow, we don't even have the unsigned escape hatch that C
has.
Whether a hostile Forth would be accepted by the Forth programmers is
doubtful.
In the case of C, the compiler maintainers rely on lock-in effects,
but if John Regehr is right
<http://blog.regehr.org/archives/1180#comment-16435> and "usage of C
in new software projects has cratered in recent years", it seems that
C programmers do not accept the hostility of the compilers, either,
when they can help it.
>In other words: There's simply no 1:1 map from unfriendly C to Forth, so we
>can't write a Forth VM in unfriendly C - it's impossible.
We actually do. I think we are lucky that gcc does not know how to be
hostile to our code without either breaking or slowing down conformant
programs. However, that's an uncomfortable position to be in, so in
the long run we will have to get rid of C.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2014: http://www.euroforth.org/ef14/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-17 18:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <m9e71u$be7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #35865 |
Anton Ertl wrote: > Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes: >>In other words: There's simply no 1:1 map from unfriendly C to Forth, so >>we can't write a Forth VM in unfriendly C - it's impossible. > > We actually do. I think we are lucky that gcc does not know how to be > hostile to our code without either breaking or slowing down conformant > programs. However, that's an uncomfortable position to be in, so in > the long run we will have to get rid of C. I throw in as many possible flags to prevent GCC from compiling *too hostile* code. Unforunately, there's no -friendly-c option... But there are several of these flags if left out, our fast engines don't work, and we face a considerable slowdown. It's pretty obvious that this race to the bottom of writing the worst C compiler ever is not about speed. It's probably all about killing C, and getting the job of maintaining the compiler suite to someone else ;-). -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/ net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ*
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-18 12:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2015Jan18.135749@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #35868 |
Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes:
>Anton Ertl wrote:
>
>> Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes:
>>>In other words: There's simply no 1:1 map from unfriendly C to Forth, so
>>>we can't write a Forth VM in unfriendly C - it's impossible.
>>
>> We actually do. I think we are lucky that gcc does not know how to be
>> hostile to our code without either breaking or slowing down conformant
>> programs. However, that's an uncomfortable position to be in, so in
>> the long run we will have to get rid of C.
>
>I throw in as many possible flags to prevent GCC from compiling *too
>hostile* code.
Yes, but you added -fwrapv only recently, and yet Gforth has worked
even without it, despite relying on modulo arithmetics (e.g., in
(+LOOP)). I thought that we also did not have -fno-strict-aliasing,
but found that I added it in 2003:-). I'll have to see what happens
if I delete it.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2014: http://www.euroforth.org/ef14/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-18 22:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <m9h9lr$orf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #35878 |
Anton Ertl wrote: > Yes, but you added -fwrapv only recently, and yet Gforth has worked > even without it, despite relying on modulo arithmetics (e.g., in > (+LOOP)). I thought that we also did not have -fno-strict-aliasing, > but found that I added it in 2003:-). I'll have to see what happens > if I delete it. Well, some like -fno-reorder-blocks don't work with GCC 4.9.0, so even telling the compiler how you want it to behave doesn't work. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/ net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ*
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-19 03:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <m9hp24$8st$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #35888 |
Bernd Paysan wrote: > Anton Ertl wrote: >> Yes, but you added -fwrapv only recently, and yet Gforth has worked >> even without it, despite relying on modulo arithmetics (e.g., in >> (+LOOP)). I thought that we also did not have -fno-strict-aliasing, >> but found that I added it in 2003:-). I'll have to see what happens >> if I delete it. > > Well, some like -fno-reorder-blocks don't work with GCC 4.9.0, so even > telling the compiler how you want it to behave doesn't work. Ouch, I just went through all the new problems GCC 4.9 creates for us, and fixed them. There are now several more options which reorder blocks, and they all have to be disabled - I actually should check if we should go from -O2 back to -O and just enable the few options that are save to use instead of the other way round. Furthermore, another dummy NEXT needs to be put after the "reference" NEXT (which is already isolated to prevent unrelated code from cluttering it up) to prevent that from cross-jumping despite I compile it with -fno-crossjumping... I'm totally fed up with GCC, and we were pretty clear that the attitude of the GCC maintainers makes complaining and reporting bugs a non-solution... so I won't send patches or report bugs. I think every decreasing quality of GCC is now helping the rest of mankind to understand that this way of maintenance is irresponsible, and when the pain is big enough, people will create alternative solutions. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/ net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ*
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-18 18:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <019077fc-bc66-4a36-af49-5634b2b9f876@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #35892 |
On Sunday, January 18, 2015 at 7:10:44 PM UTC-7, Bernd Paysan wrote: > I'm totally fed up with GCC, and we were pretty clear that the attitude of > the GCC maintainers makes complaining and reporting bugs a non-solution... > so I won't send patches or report bugs. I think every decreasing quality of > GCC is now helping the rest of mankind to understand that this way of > maintenance is irresponsible, and when the pain is big enough, people will > create alternative solutions. It is a Catch-22: 1.) Nobody uses Gforth because it is too slow --- Gforth is just a toy. 2.) The GCC maintainers ignore the Gforth programmers because nobody uses Gforth --- Gforth is just a toy. It is not an "attitude problem" on the part of the GCC maintainers, it is just a practical matter of them supporting programmers whose programs are actually used. Bernd --- you are expecting to give all of the heavy-lifting to the GCC maintainers, and then you wonder why they act like you are unimportant and not worth listening to. When I first heard of Gforth many years ago, I assumed that it had been written by C programmers for the purpose of "proving" that Forth is a toy language and that C is a real language --- I didn't even consider the possibility that Gforth had been written for the purpose of being used to write commercial software --- I'm not aware today of any commercial software having ever being written in Gforth, so I think my first impression was correct. So long as Gforth continues to be written in C, Gforth is going to continue to be offered as evidence that Forth programmers are incapable of actual programming, but are forever be dependent upon the C community to do their heavy-lifting for them: On Friday, March 1, 2013 at 7:36:05 PM UTC-7, Rod Pemberton wrote: > Sigh, Hugh, let me ask you a question. Which Forth's are *not* > written in C? Or, weren't once? Which don't use C for > "primitives"? Of those, how many are still in-use today? I > would've thought you picked up _something_ from my constant pro-C > writings by now, my constantly mentioning Forths coded in C, etc. > Long-term success doesn't just happen. There is a reason for it. > Forth is as ubiquitous as C is. Do you honestly think that > happened without Forth being carried by C on it's back, at least > part of the way? Don't you think the "Footprints in the Sand" > poem describes C perfectly as a 'God' language: > > http://llerrah.com/footprints.htm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-17 11:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2015Jan17.124558@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #35853 |
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> writes:
>In the GCC 2.95 era the compiler manual specified wrapv behavior for
>signed overflow, so your claim that an overflow-triggering program is
>merely non-portable (instead of invalid) made sense in that environment.
It does? Already gcc 2.95 miscompiles "x<x-1". So much for the
claims of the maintainers that
...
>>> The [committee's] belief [is] ... that they are specifying an HLL
>>> that enables ultra-aggressive optimization
>
>> No, they aren't. Please cite the place where they do so.
>
>That's my summary of long discussions and debates with committee members
>(mostly one person, but still). There's not a single document I can
>point to. But here's an old post that gives some of the flavor:
>
>https://groups.google.com/forum/message/raw?msg=sci.crypt/uPyldDtWV_Y/GubXCyF-o-4J
I see nothing of the flavour there.
>http://blog.regehr.org/archives/1180#comment-16431 is not from a
>committee member AFAIK, but also illustrates that viewpoint about C:
>
> UB is the only thing that has kept C compilers ahead of other
> languages in terms of performance, and by extension, the only thing
> that has kept C alive for so long. If you remove all of the small
> competitive advantages that keep C “fast”, then it may as well not
> exist as a language, since it has *very* little else going for it,
> except for providing an system ABI for others to build on.
He's wrong. The low-level nature of the language had kept C ahead of
other languages in terms of real performance (maybe not benchmark
performance, but that's irrelevant if it does not reflect real
performance). The abandoning of that aspect by the C compiler
maintainers is hurting C performance and probably also its long-term
survival (and sometimes I get the impression that the survival of C is
not really desired by those who take your view, including you).
E.g., Gforth would be slower by at least a factor of 2 (probably quite
a bit more) if its engine was written in standard-conformant C. We
prototyped another performance improvement providing another good
speedup (median speedup factor 1.32 on an Athlon, 1.49 on a PPC7400
<http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/papers/ertl%26gregg04pact.ps.gz>),
but did not pursue that further because we had to work around all the
problems and slowdowns that the "optimizations" in gcc under the new
maintainers introduced for our production code, and the new feature
appreared too brittle when confronted with a compiler that had turned
from supportive into hostile.
>There's a proposal for a "friendly dialect of C" that you might like:
>
> http://blog.regehr.org/archives/1180
That's certainly going in the right direction. Concerning the way of
specifying it, my thinking has been in the other direction:
Essentially everything the compiler accepts does what one would expect
on the hardware platform (what a straightforward translation would
produce), and there are some things, in particular the placement of
local variables and arrangement of the memory of various objects that
is not guaranteed to be the same across runs.
>Suppose the "friendly" C dialect is implemented in GCC, and suppose it's
>even made the default, so to get all that UB you have to use the
>"-faggressive-ansi" option. I know that lots of the gforth development
>work went into making it fast, and lots of gforth-related publications
>contain benchmark data comparing it to competing Forths. You find that
>with -faggressive-ansi, gforth and gforth-fast still passes all their
>tests and runs 10% faster than with the friendly setting.
>
>So do you use the option? If yes, how are your complaints about ANSI
>legitimate? If not, what does that say about your confidence in your
>development skills and testing processes?
We would probably treat it like the current known-unreliable features
of gcc (currently explicit register allocation and 128-bit integers).
Our build process would try it, and test the result. If it passes the
tests, we would use that version, otherwise a version compiled without
that option. Or, if it turned out that we cannot reliably test for
breakage from -faggressive-ansi, we would just not use it. BTW, gcc
already has a -ansi flag, as well as -ansi -pedantic for highly
masochistic developers; we ask for neither kind of pain, yet we still
get it.
In any case, your premise does not hold, so it does not matter what we
would do if it held. The gcc maintainers have started down the
miscompilation path since gcc-2.95 (by default) , and it has not
provided a speedup of 10%. Instead, a slowdown by a factor of 2 is
not uncommon. See Section 3.5 and figure 7 and 8 of
<http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/euroforth/ef09/papers/ertl.pdf>.
For Intel (Xeon 5450), gcc-2.95 produced the fastest results for all
versions of gforth despite being a decade older than the hardware (and
so not being able to profit from knowledge about the microarchitecture
that the later gcc versions could have used; but apparently it was
more important for the gcc maintainers to focus on miscompilation).
So not only did they reduce the language they support, they also
produced a slowdown, despite having the opportunity to optimize for
the microarchitecture, and quite a lot of effort expended on gcc, a
lot of it supposedly for performance.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2014: http://www.euroforth.org/ef14/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-17 17:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d84280f5-c9c5-4675-81fa-5b443524f75e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #35864 |
On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 6:27:33 AM UTC-7, Anton Ertl wrote: > For Intel (Xeon 5450), gcc-2.95 produced the fastest results for all > versions of gforth despite being a decade older than the hardware (and > so not being able to profit from knowledge about the microarchitecture > that the later gcc versions could have used; but apparently it was > more important for the gcc maintainers to focus on miscompilation). > So not only did they reduce the language they support, they also > produced a slowdown, despite having the opportunity to optimize for > the microarchitecture, and quite a lot of effort expended on gcc, a > lot of it supposedly for performance. You're just blowing smoke --- there is no "knowledge about the microarchitecture" and there is no "opportunity to optimize for the microarchitecture" --- the micro-architecture is proprietary to the chip-makers. It is known that the ciscy x86 code gets compiled into a riscy micro-code on-the-fly at run-time, but nobody knows anything about the micro-code --- nobody even knows how big the micro-code cache is --- also, this stuff differs from chip-maker to chip-maker, so a program that is fast on one chip isn't necessarily going to be fast on another compatible chip. All we have are some techniques for "optimizing" x86 code (see volume-2 of the Intel manual on optimization) --- but it is all voodoo rituals, as nobody knows what effect any of these techniques have, or how they affect each other when used together. You guys just fake up expertise all the time, on subjects that you know nothing about --- sometimes even on subjects that nobody knows anything about --- who are you trying to kid?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-18 14:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0f960465-6d8c-4b69-a65f-128454b8169c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #35864 |
On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 6:27:33 AM UTC-7, Anton Ertl wrote: > Gforth would be slower by at least a factor of 2 (probably quite > a bit more) if its engine was written in standard-conformant C. Can somebody please explain to me why Gforth is written in C rather than x86 assembly-language? What possible explanation is there, except that none of you know assembly language? x86 is essentially a high-level language itself, as it compiles into a low-level machine-code on-the-fly at run-time, so when you use C you have one high-level language compiling into another high-level language, and that compiling into a machine-language that is proprietary and undocumented. If you write in x86 however, then you can dedicate registers globally, which can't be done in C, and which should at least quadruple your speed. Another advantage of x86 over C is that x86 is well-defined and always works the same everywhere, and will continue to do so in the future throughout the 21st century as new chips come out --- there is no wondering about what is "standard-conformant" or not. Some people don't like x86 assembly-language. I remember in the mid-1990s when the PowerPC was supposed to kill the x86 finally, but that didn't work out. Whether you like it or not, the 64-bit x86 is the standard, and it will be for most if not all of the 21st century --- so if you are going to be computer programmers, you have to learn it. C is 1980s technology; it is not used for much anymore except device-drivers, and it may not survive past 2020 due to the fact that the x86 assemblers (FASM) are better in every way. Gforth is about 1/2 the speed of SwiftForth-v2 in running my ANS-Forth programs in the novice package, and SwiftForth is actually slower than Factor although Factor is a dynamic-OOP language (dynamic-OOP is inherently inefficient, but it gets used because it is convenient) --- you committee members are failing badly; you are not even close to being competitive with anybody anywhere. I continue to believe that the Forth-200x committee made a deal with Elizabeth Rather in that she allows you to be on the committee and claim to be big experts, but only so long as you cripple Gforth so that it is 1/2 the speed of SwiftForth and doesn't take any customers away from SwiftForth --- the sole purpose of Gforth is to make SwiftForth look good by comparison, despite the fact that SwiftForth is a dog in every way. Aloha!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-19 00:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1lyh0ql.1ljenyn1ugte9qN%awegel@arcor.de> |
| In reply to | #35889 |
<hughaguilar96@gmail.com> wrote: > Can somebody please explain to me why Gforth is written in C rather > than x86 assembly-language? Can you really be that simple-minded? It's hard to believe. You might try thinking twice sometimes (preferably when things don't seem to make sense to you the first time).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-19 15:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2015Jan19.160434@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #35889 |
hughaguilar96@gmail.com writes:
>Can somebody please explain to me why Gforth is written in C rather than x8=
>6 assembly-language?
Gforth is written in a variety of languages, with the largest portion
in Forth. It's engine (primitives etc.) are written in a language
(vmgen) that translates through GNU C for portability. Gforth runs on
a large variety of architectures; if the engine was written in IA-32
assembly language, it would run only on IA-32.
Some may believe that a threaded-code engine written in assembly
language would have led to better performance than that exhibited by
Gforth. However, looking at
<http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/performance.html>, Gforth
0.4.9 performed faster than any of the threaded-code Forth systems
written in assembly language (Win32Forth, NT Forth, and eforth) on all
of the benchmarks on a 486DX2/66:
|The interpretive systems written in assembly language (except eforth
|opt) are, surprisingly, slower than Gforth. One important reason for
|the disappointing performance of these systems is probably that they
|are not written optimally for the 486 (e.g., they use the lods
|instruction).
> If you=
> write in x86 however, then you can dedicate registers globally, which can'=
>t be done in C, and which should at least quadruple your speed.
GNU C supports explicit register variables, and Gforth uses that.
> Another adv=
>antage of x86 over C is that x86 is well-defined and always works the same =
>everywhere, and will continue to do so in the future throughout the 21st ce=
>ntury as new chips come out --- there is no wondering about what is "standa=
>rd-conformant" or not.
That has become a concern in recent years, and that's why we are
planning to move away from GNU C.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2014: http://www.euroforth.org/ef14/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | beeflo <beeflobill@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-19 16:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fafd8da5-d86a-405a-a0ff-03efe8caa4f1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #35901 |
> > Another adv= > >antage of x86 over C is that x86 is well-defined and always works the same = > >everywhere, and will continue to do so in the future throughout the 21st ce= > >ntury as new chips come out --- there is no wondering about what is "standa= > >rd-conformant" or not. > > That has become a concern in recent years, and that's why we are > planning to move away from GNU C. > > - anton What other compilers are close to being suitable for gforth's needs? I assume you want a compiler with a free licence, and that supports a wide variety of hardware.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-20 03:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <m9keas$lgi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #35909 |
beeflo wrote: > What other compilers are close to being suitable for gforth's needs? I > assume you want a compiler with a free licence, and that supports a wide > variety of hardware. Apart from that, what we really need for Forth is an incremental compiler. The static C compiler can be used to compile an engine, but what we really need is to compile Forth on the fly. The good thing is: To achieve better performance than with the current GCC approach, we can do with a much less sophisticated compiler. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/ net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ*
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-20 04:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20150120042337.5e43d90f@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #35910 |
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 03:26:02 +0100 Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote: > beeflo wrote: > > What other compilers are close to being suitable for gforth's > > needs? I assume you want a compiler with a free licence, and that > > supports a wide variety of hardware. > > Apart from that, what we really need for Forth is an incremental > compiler. The static C compiler can be used to compile an engine, but > what we really need is to compile Forth on the fly. > > The good thing is: To achieve better performance than with the > current GCC approach, we can do with a much less sophisticated > compiler. > Problem is that there is no such.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-23 21:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <abead528-5da0-40a3-8abd-1178d9770fa4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #35911 |
On Monday, January 19, 2015 at 8:23:38 PM UTC-7, Melzzzzz wrote: > On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 03:26:02 +0100 > Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote: > > > beeflo wrote: > > > What other compilers are close to being suitable for gforth's > > > needs? I assume you want a compiler with a free licence, and that > > > supports a wide variety of hardware. > > > > Apart from that, what we really need for Forth is an incremental > > compiler. The static C compiler can be used to compile an engine, but > > what we really need is to compile Forth on the fly. > > > > The good thing is: To achieve better performance than with the > > current GCC approach, we can do with a much less sophisticated > > compiler. > > > > Problem is that there is no such. I asked the C-- developers if they could make C-- incremental so that I could write a Forth that would compile into C-- rather than use a traditional Forth assembler that is incremental (but which is processor-specific and doesn't do any optimization). They told me that this was possible, but they didn't like the idea because this would prevent them from doing global optimizations and set them back to the obsolete technique of only optimizing locally (within a function). They also told me that the grant money had dried up for C-- and so C-- was dead as none of them were willing to continue working on it for free. They said that C-- is pretty cool though, and that they hoped that some enthusiastic hobbyist would pick up the baton. I'm on the mailing list, but there hasn't been a single post in over a year --- not since I asked my question and got my response --- so there seems to be nobody enthusiastic enough to work for free on it. A lot of people seem to expect quality software to be provided to them for free, but it actually takes a lot of time and effort to write quality software, and this doesn't happen without money. I got paid to write MFX, so I worked on it full time, and full-time effort is what it takes to produce quality software --- after MFX was completed and the motion-control boards were operational, the money dried up --- accountants hate R&D and they encourage the business owner to kill the R&D budget as soon as possible in order to obtain a positive cash-flow (accountants really wish that products could be magically developed without any R&D at all, so the only costs would be the guy who solders the boards together, the supervisor who yells at him to make him work faster, the salesman who gets his commission for selling the boards, and themselves of course who get paid to lecture the business owners on the concept of cash-flow). Anton makes his money working as a school teacher not as a programmer, so Gforth is not quality software --- there are no customers for Gforth who are demanding their money's worth --- the only users of Gforth are school kids who hope that Anton will give them an 'A' for writing a sudoku-solver, and nevermind how slow it runs (so long as the slowness is due to the language, rather than to their algorithm, then the students can't be blamed and they get their 'A').
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-20 20:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7b7bdf6c-e866-483d-be8c-20dba492716f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #35910 |
On Monday, January 19, 2015 at 7:26:04 PM UTC-7, Bernd Paysan wrote: > beeflo wrote: > > What other compilers are close to being suitable for gforth's needs? I > > assume you want a compiler with a free licence, and that supports a wide > > variety of hardware. > > Apart from that, what we really need for Forth is an incremental compiler. > The static C compiler can be used to compile an engine, but what we really > need is to compile Forth on the fly. Forth assemblers have always been "incremental" --- why did you abandon this technique, that works so well? Writing Gforth in C was just incredibly dumb --- a complete abandonment of Forth techniques that had worked well for a long time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-20 07:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2015Jan20.081008@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #35909 |
beeflo <beeflobill@gmail.com> writes:
>What other compilers are close to being suitable for gforth's needs? I assume you want a compiler with a free licence, and that supports a wide variety of hardware.
The current plan is to do a native-code compiler for popular
platforms, with a fallback to the GNU C version for other platforms;
when gcc breaks the GNU C version, the workaround will be in the
direction of C-standard conformance, e.g., by disabling Gforth
performance features, instead of in the direction of performance. The
general-purpose computing world has consolidated on AMD64 and ARM
instead of the 10 or so architectures that were relevant 20 years ago,
so the effort of a native-code compiler is not as big as it would have
been then.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2014: http://www.euroforth.org/ef14/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-20 12:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <54be4449$0$15878$e4fe514c@dreader35.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #35913 |
In article <2015Jan20.081008@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>, Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: >beeflo <beeflobill@gmail.com> writes: >>What other compilers are close to being suitable for gforth's >needs? I assume you want a compiler with a free licence, and that >supports a wide variety of hardware. > >The current plan is to do a native-code compiler for popular >platforms, with a fallback to the GNU C version for other platforms; >when gcc breaks the GNU C version, the workaround will be in the >direction of C-standard conformance, e.g., by disabling Gforth >performance features, instead of in the direction of performance. The >general-purpose computing world has consolidated on AMD64 and ARM >instead of the 10 or so architectures that were relevant 20 years ago, >so the effort of a native-code compiler is not as big as it would have >been then. I analysed the gforth I have, w.r.t. the assembler instructions used. These are limited, and those are the only instructions the c-compiler has to generate. Compare this to a Forth-in-assembler. In my experience, you can get by with a very limited subset of the i86 instruction set, which in turn makes porting less burdensome. Some Forth concepts (LIT plus inline, and NEXT) can be handled by macro's allowing for easy experimenting. I've been thinking about using a Forth assembler (post-it fixup) as the backend of the c-compiler, as a start to forthify the gnu c-compiler. Shouldn't be too hard and a fun project. > >- anton Groetjes Albert -- Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-20 16:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2015Jan20.171140@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #35917 |
albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) writes:
>In my experience, you can get by with a very limited subset of the
>i86 instruction set, which in turn makes porting less burdensome.
>Some Forth concepts (LIT plus inline, and NEXT) can be handled by
>macro's allowing for easy experimenting.
Yes, one can get by with very little, as demonstrated by native-code
compilers like machine Forth and bigForth. But we are a little more
ambitious, and since we are not in a big hurry for now (even if the
next gcc totally stops compiling Gforth, there are still the current
versions around for a few more years), we follow these ambitions.
>I've been thinking about using a Forth assembler (post-it fixup)
>as the backend of the c-compiler, as a start to forthify
>the gnu c-compiler. Shouldn't be too hard and a fun project.
Probably not with gcc, which is an unwieldy beast. You might want to
take a look at tcc. I have had some thoughts in a similar direction,
and you can read about that here:
@InProceedings{ertl13-paf,
author = {M. Anton Ertl},
title = {{PAF}: A Portable Assembly Language},
crossref = {euroforth13},
pages = {30--38},
url = {http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/euroforth/ef13/papers/ertl-paf.pdf},
OPTnote = {not refereed},
abstract = {A portable assembly language provides access to
machine-level features like memory addresses,
machine words, code addresses, and modulo
arithmetics, like assembly language, but abstracts
away differences between architectures like the
assembly language syntax, instruction encoding,
register set size, and addressing modes. Forth
already satisfies a number of the characteristics of
a portable assembly language, and is therefore a
good basis. This paper presents PAF, a portable
assembly language based on Forth, and specifically
discusses language features that other portable
assembly languages do not have, and their benefits;
it also discusses the differences from Forth. The
main innovations of PAF are: tags indicate the
control flow for indirect branches and calls; and
PAF has two kinds of calls and definitions: the ABI
ones follow the platform's calling convention and
are useful for interfacing to the outside world,
while the PAF ones allow tail-call elimination and
are useful for implementing general control
structures.}
}
@Proceedings{euroforth13,
title = {29th EuroForth Conference},
booktitle = {29th EuroForth Conference},
year = {2013},
key = {EuroForth'13},
url = {http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/euroforth/ef13/papers/proceedings.pdf}
}
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2014: http://www.euroforth.org/ef14/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-20 20:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <40256c1f-8f9f-413a-94d9-fd173761ec83@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #35920 |
On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 9:25:09 AM UTC-7, Anton Ertl wrote:
> @InProceedings{ertl13-paf,
> author = {M. Anton Ertl},
> title = {{PAF}: A Portable Assembly Language},
> crossref = {euroforth13},
> pages = {30--38},
> url = {http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/euroforth/ef13/papers/ertl-paf.pdf},
> OPTnote = {not refereed},
> abstract = {A portable assembly language provides access to
> machine-level features like memory addresses,
> machine words, code addresses, and modulo
> arithmetics, like assembly language, but abstracts
> away differences between architectures like the
> assembly language syntax, instruction encoding,
> register set size, and addressing modes. Forth
> already satisfies a number of the characteristics of
> a portable assembly language, and is therefore a
> good basis. This paper presents PAF, a portable
> assembly language based on Forth, and specifically
> discusses language features that other portable
> assembly languages do not have, and their benefits;
> it also discusses the differences from Forth. The
> main innovations of PAF are: tags indicate the
> control flow for indirect branches and calls; and
> PAF has two kinds of calls and definitions: the ABI
> ones follow the platform's calling convention and
> are useful for interfacing to the outside world,
> while the PAF ones allow tail-call elimination and
> are useful for implementing general control
> structures.}
> }
> @Proceedings{euroforth13,
> title = {29th EuroForth Conference},
> booktitle = {29th EuroForth Conference},
> year = {2013},
> key = {EuroForth'13},
> url = {http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/euroforth/ef13/papers/proceedings.pdf}
> }
This is a good idea. This idea has been around since the 1980s though, so you shouldn't take credit for it.
You can't abstract away the register set size --- you have to assume a certain number of registers. This is why the idea is feasible now, and wasn't feasible in the 1980s --- because you can assume 16 registers now (this leaves out the 32-bit x86 though, but it is obsolete anyway) --- in the old days, processors had very few registers, and juggling these few registers was different on every processor (the 6812 and the 8086, for example).
Your PAF won't work on the MiniForth though --- it will only work on mainstream processors.
Anyway, what I'm doing right now is targeting the 8-bit AVR. This is the smallest processor that I can imagine my Forth running on (16 registers with 3 that can be used as pointers) --- porting it to a larger more powerful processor should be easy (although going in the other direction, from a powerful processor to a more limited one, would be difficult). I don't actually consider the AVR to be very useful, because it is not powerful enough for most applications and it is well on its way to being obsolete --- I am just interested in the AVR as a proof-of-concept platform.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 14 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web