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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #16683

Re: RTX2000 optimization

From "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm>
Newsgroups comp.lang.forth
Subject Re: RTX2000 optimization
Date 2012-10-25 00:42 -0400
Organization Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID <k6afoh$laf$1@speranza.aioe.org> (permalink)
References <e1479cfa-a969-40ab-b20c-096d82601657@googlegroups.com> <k64svk$njr$1@speranza.aioe.org> <k672lj$82o$1@dont-email.me> <k68npd$9f7$1@speranza.aioe.org> <172e6a33-bc52-4fe9-8867-88f69c2954f8@10g2000vbu.googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

"Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> wrote in message
news:172e6a33-bc52-4fe9-8867-88f69c2954f8@10g2000vbu.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 24, 1:43 pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailnotz.cnm>
> wrote:
> > "rickman" <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:k672lj$82o$1@dont-email.me...
> > On 10/22/2012 9:51 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> > > "Brad Eckert"<hwfw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > >news:e1479cfa-a969-40ab-b20c-096d82601657@googlegroups.com...
...

> > > >> I've been thinking about Novix style processors like the RTX2000.
> > > >> There are many Forth sequences that can be compacted into one
> > > >> instruction, so with a good optimizer the chip can execute several
> > > >> Forth (source) primitives in one machine cycle. I suspect though
> > > >> that such optimization opportunities are the exception rather than
> > > >> the rule.
>
> > > > The question for both you (and Rick) is if you create new, faster,
> > > > more powerful, multiple operation instructions, how do you ensure
> > > > they are used? Without an optimizer, it's likely the instruction
> > > > will have a low instruction frequency. I.e., a person is unlikely to
> > > > use it.  In which case, there is no point in using or implementing
> > > > it. (This is repeated later in a reply to Rick.)
>
> > > We aren't talking about Forth coding really. We are talking about the
> > > assembly language for a machine. I don't think instructions will go
> > > unused just because they are mapped to Forth in a more complicated way
> > > than 1 to 1 (or 1/2 to 1).
>
> > > >> Does anyone here have a feel for the correspondence between Forth
> > > >> source primitives and generated code?
>
> > > > Generally, Forth's built using "primitives" or low-level words
> > > > generally need 30 to 40 or so. I kept track of how many are needed
> > > > for certain Forths. There are a few posts by me to c.l.f. with
> > > > counts and specific words used.
>
> > > Don't confuse Forth low level primitives (which are really HLL
> > > primitives selected to be convenient for the programmer writing a
> > > Forth) and assembly language which has to be selected in part based
> > > on what is practical and efficient to implement. Chuck's machine only
> > > uses 32 opcodes and you can get by with as few as 16.
>
> > For temporary reasons, most of my Forth stack operators, like DUP SWAP
> > etc, aren't currently low-level Forth "primitives". They're implemented
> > in high-level Forth using an even lower set of actual stack
> > "primitives", which I'll call sub-operators for this thread. These
> > sub-operators could be considered to be "stack assembly instructions"
> > for my Forth.  Currently, only >R and R> are actually "primitives" coded
> > in C. Eventually, DUP DROP SWAP OVER will be actual low-level Forth
> > "primitives", as they once were.
>
> > So, a word like OVER can be coded in many ways. I have 22 different
> > definitions just for OVER in a list, and one can construct many more.
> > E.g.,
>
> > : OVER >R DUP R> SWAP ;
> > : OVER 1 PICK ;
> > : OVER SWAP TUCK ;
> > : OVER SWAP DUP -ROT ;
> > : OVER NUP SWAP ;
> > etc.
>
> > Which definition you choose affects how fast OVER executes and depends
> > on what operations you have available and on how fast each of those
> > operations are.
>
> > E.g., if >R >R DUP SWAP and -ROT are all very fast machine instructions
> > for your processor, then ">R DUP R> SWAP" and "SWAP DUP -ROT" should
> > be fast sequences. And, one sequence will be faster than the other,
> > depending on how fast each instruction is. But, if -ROT is not a machine
> > instruction, e.g., perhaps coded as "ROT ROT" or "SWAP >R SWAP R>",
> > or -ROT is a very slow machine instruction, then "SWAP DUP -ROT" is
> > more expensive than ">R DUP R> SWAP".
>
> > The instructions also need to be balanced acrossed many Forth words.
> > Originally, I had the 2xxx series words defined in terms of the simpler
> > stack operators, like SWAP DUP etc. When I converted to sub-operators,
> > the number of operations per definition dropped dramatically for some of
> > the 2xxx definitions. Since the sub-operators are primitives, some of
> > the 2xxx definitions became faster. However, after converting all of the
> > simpler stack operators to sub-operators, a few of the non-primitive
> > simple stack operators ended up with more operations per definition.
> > So some words became much faster, while others became slightly slower.
> > And, the former primitives became real slow, but they'll be converted
> > back eventually.
>
> > Let's take a look at 2OVER for my Forth interpreter. I could easily
> > implement it as a Forth low-level "primitive". Or, I could define it in
> > high-level Forth. Or, I could define it in high-level Forth in terms of
> > sub-operators which are actually the low-level "primitives".
>
> > In high-level Forth, 2OVER can be defined:
>
> > : 2OVER 2>R 2DUP 2R> 2SWAP ;
>
> > In terms of my sub-operators, my 2OVER definition has ten words it's
> > definition. Clearly, that's many more words than the four in definition
> > above. But, 2>R 2R> 2DUP and 2SWAP are also implemented in high-level
> > Forth using the same set of sub-operators. So, 2>R 2R> 2DUP and 2SWAP
> > aren't "primitives" nor are they a single sub-operator each.
>
> > The 2>R sequence has six items.
> > The 2DUP sequence has six items.
> > The 2R> sequence has six items.
> > The 2SWAP sequence has eight items.
>
> > The 2OVER sequence has ten items.
>
> > So, 2OVER is only 10 items using a single sequence of sub-operators
> > instead of a total 28 items using four sequences of sub-operators for
> > the four words in the high-level definition. If the 2>R 2DUP 2R> and
> > 2SWAP words are defined in terms of standard Forth words:
>
> > The 2>R sequence has three items.
> > The 2DUP sequence has ten items over multiple words.
> > The 2R> sequence has three items.
> > The 2SWAP sequence has twelve items over multiple words.
>
> > In this case, the counts changed, but it just happens that it's total is
> > 28 also... Usually, it's more. Of course, you'd rather have a 2DUP of
> > six items instead of ten, i.e., balance. If the instructions are
> > unbalanced, then heavy use of a single Forth word will slow the code
> > speed way down.  I.e., many 2DUP's of ten items is much worse than
> > many 2DUP's with six items, even if other used words are made slightly
> > slower, like 2>R and 2R>. Of course, you don't know if your user's code
> > will follow the measured instruction frequencies or not. But, at this
> > point, you're the only user ...
>
> > As a primitive, 2OVER will be a small C routine which is compiled to
> > optimized, machine code.
>
>

IIRC, you're the guy who says I snip too much.  Well, it's all there.
Reformatted.  I don't know who is going to read through all that or
enjoy scrolling for six pages just to get to this, which is almost
another topic ...

> I believe the minimal set of primitives out of which all stack
> juggling words can be built is DUP DROP SWAP >R R>.
>
> : over         >r dup r> swap            ;
> : nip          swap drop                 ;
> : tuck         swap over                 ;
> : rot          >r swap r> swap           ;
> : -rot         swap >r swap r>           ;
> : 2swap        rot >r rot r>             ;
> : 2dup         over over                 ;
> : 2over        2>r 2dup 2r> 2swap        ;
> : 2drop        drop drop                 ;
> : 2nip         2swap 2drop               ;
> : 2rot         2>r 2swap 2r> 2swap       ;
> : r@           r> dup >r                 ;
> : 2>r          swap >r >r                ;
> : 2r>          r> r> swap                ;
> : 2r@          2r> 2dup 2>r              ;


Oops, I'm missing the 2r@ definition using 2xxx words ...

Yes.  But, the minimal set is not likely to be the fastest solution.

E.g., 2r@ calls 2r> which calls 3 words, 2>r which calls 3 words, and 2dup
which calls over twice which calls four other words for 8 words, plus the
overhead for calling DOCOL/ENTER SEMIS/EXIT.  A single, optimized
definition for 2r@ can be shorter and therefore faster:

: 2r@  r> r> dup >r swap dup >r ;

That's only trivially faster, one operation less, assuming DUP DROP SWAP
>R R> are primitives.  Unfortunately, I can't cite my 2r@ in sub-operators
as faster.  It's slightly worse.  Other definitions are improved more.  My
sub-operators improve some of the 2xxx words quite a bit.

> In your "sub-operator" notation, such sequences can be greatly
> simplified. Assuming an addressable stack (that is, we don't need to
> POP to get entries off the stack to access them, such as on the x86)
> there are 6 of these operations, 3 for each stack. SGET S[n] and RGET
> R[n] fetch entries from the stacks by fixed offset from a stack
> pointer, SPUT S[n] and RPUT R[n] store entries on the stacks, and SPTR
> + n and RPTR+ n adjust the stack pointers. In the example below, only
> the S operators are shown, since the rstack operations and other
> juggling have been optimised away. [reg] is a virtual register.
>
> : 2OVER 2>R 2DUP 2R> 2SWAP ;
> block ( S: 4 -- 6 R: 0 -- 0 )
> [1] block-begin [2]
> [5] sget S[2]
> [4] sget S[3]
> [5] sput S[-2]
> [4] sput S[-1]
> [3] sptr+ -2
> [2] block-end [1]

Well, I haven't done a 3-level analysis, but did do a 2-level direct
read/write of the data stack.  I'm using a highly modified version, by me,
of Peter Sovietov's Forth Wizard in Javascript.

Anyway, I concluded that the 2-level direct read/write wasn't all that
optimal.  I found a different combination of pushing/popping which I believe
to provide better overall results.  But, eventually, SWAP DROP DUP R> >R
will be primitives again.  So, this may be all for naught.

For Forthers here, SGET and SPUT would be like PICK and the uncommon
opposite operation: PLACE.


Rod Pemberton

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

Thread

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

csiph-web