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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #20368

Re: Integer cosine function

From Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de>
Newsgroups comp.lang.forth
Subject Re: Integer cosine function
Date 2013-03-07 00:11 +0100
Organization 1&1 Internet AG
Message-ID <kh8ife$inb$1@online.de> (permalink)
References (12 earlier) <55e44f69-28e2-41ee-8248-4f0bd54b114a@l13g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> <kg92jf$g5g$1@online.de> <f230c9be-d249-4a4b-b4b3-9a8bbcd0b9e4@y2g2000pbg.googlegroups.com> <kh7o0e$v9a$1@online.de> <e7116ff4-f18d-40b6-9c54-e7b0a66a8697@ru10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

Hugh Aguilar wrote:
> Nowadays Anton Ertl refers to
> Gforth as the "mainstream system," but I'm not aware of anybody having
> ever written a commercial product in Gforth --- so I think the score
> is 1 to 0 in my favor. :-)

Well, a lot of people use Gforth.  We rarely hear what they do with it.   I 
can assure you that people use Gforth not only for hobbyist work, but also 
for commercial work, in so far as the GPL permits (which is quite a lot, 
since most Forth programs are in-house usage, and no source code has to go 
outside).

Not every development gets out to customers.  Two friends of mine in Munich 
ported Gforth EC once to Siemens' latest smart card processor, which didn't 
have a really working C compiler at that time.  The port was a success, they 
had played Tetris for terminals on the processor while the C people still 
were struggling with Hello World.  But in fact, this didn't help the 
smartcard processor from Siemens, which never became a commercial product.  
People rather use these 8051-based smartcards...

> The clever trick with ISYS, which I borrowed for my Forth, was to have
> a split parameter-stack. Most Forths have a parameter stack with the
> high and low bytes of each cell adjacent to each other. Assuming that
> the stack-pointer is X, then two INX instructions are needed to drop a
> cell from the stack, and two DEX instructions are needed to make room
> for a cell on the stack. With the split stack however, the low bytes
> of the cells are in one stack and the high bytes of the cells are in
> another stack, and the two stacks are $40 bytes apart. You use a
> different base address ($0 for the low bytes and $40 for the high
> bytes) to get the low or high byte of the value. The clever part here
> is that only one INX instruction is needed to drop a cell from the
> stack, and only one DEX instruction is needed to make room for a cell
> on the stack.

Nice trick, indeed.  However, you can't access the stack through sp@ + @.

> All in all, the 6502 and its derivatives (the 65c02 in the Apple and
> the 6510 in the C64) was a pretty cool processor.

A lot of people got first contact with computers having that processor in 
it.

> The indirect,X addressing mode was a big waste. It was almost never
> used by anybody. All of those instructions should have been something
> more useful. For the most part though, the 6502 was a good design ---
> it was way better than the 6800 that preceded it --- it offered more
> opportunity for writing small tight code than the Z80, although the
> Z80 was easier to program by most accounts. The 6809 was better than
> both, but it only got used in the Radio Shack Color Computer for home
> use, and in various OS9 computers for industrial use --- if Motorola
> would have stuck with it, they could have succeeded --- but Motorola
> repeatedly introduced new-and-improved processors and forced their
> customers to rewrite their programs, which is why everybody just
> switched over to the Intel 8051 even though it was hard to program by
> most standards.

I've said that the 8051 is what people who stick to what they have done for 
the last 30 years like.  Motorola quickly went from the 6809 to the 68HC11, 
and *that one* lasted.  It is AFAIK still in production, even from the 
original vendor (which is now called Freescale), though it's of course a 
legacy product.  It is available as synthesizable core, for today's typical 
deeply embedded silicon stuff.

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/

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

Thread

Integer cosine function Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2013-02-16 07:35 -0800
  Re: Integer cosine function mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2013-02-17 13:57 +0200
    Re: Integer cosine function Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-02-17 09:40 -0600
      Re: Integer cosine function "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-02-17 07:51 -1000
        Re: Integer cosine function mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2013-02-17 19:06 +0200
          Re: Integer cosine function anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-02-18 14:46 +0000
          Re: Integer cosine function Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2013-02-19 20:01 +0100
            Re: Integer cosine function mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2013-02-19 21:34 +0200
              Re: Integer cosine function Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2013-02-19 21:46 +0100
            Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-02-19 15:55 -0800
              Re: Integer cosine function Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2013-02-21 00:59 +0100
        Re: Integer cosine function Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2013-02-18 09:19 -0800
          Re: Integer cosine function rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-02-18 14:27 -0500
          Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-18 20:53 +0100
            Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-02-18 19:10 -0800
              Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-19 13:13 +0100
              Re: Integer cosine function rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-02-19 23:04 -0500
            Re: Integer cosine function Gary Bergstrom <g.bergstrom@ieee.org> - 2013-02-20 10:00 -0800
              Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-21 13:04 +0100
                Re: Integer cosine function rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-02-21 19:03 -0500
                Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-22 02:45 +0100
                Re: Integer cosine function Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-02-22 02:32 -0800
                Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-22 16:01 +0100
                Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-02-22 22:07 -0800
                Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-02-23 10:27 -0500
                Re: Integer cosine function Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-02-22 03:59 -0600
                Re: Integer cosine function Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-02-22 02:30 -0800
                Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-22 15:56 +0100
                Re: Integer cosine function Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2013-02-22 16:13 +0100
                Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-22 17:45 +0100
                Re: Integer cosine function Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2013-02-22 18:44 +0100
                Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-22 19:19 +0100
                Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-02-22 14:43 -0800
                Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-23 01:30 +0100
                Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-02-22 21:51 -0800
                Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-24 01:43 +0100
                Re: Integer cosine function anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-02-25 17:55 +0000
                Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-25 21:01 +0100
                Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-02-25 23:22 -0800
                Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-26 15:11 +0100
                Re: Integer cosine function rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-02-27 08:05 -0500
                Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-02-27 22:14 -0500
                Re: Integer cosine function rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-02-27 22:56 -0500
                Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-03-01 21:37 -0500
                Re: Integer cosine function rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-03-07 13:12 -0500
                Re: Integer cosine function Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2013-02-28 08:00 -0800
                Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-03-01 21:38 -0500
                Re: Integer cosine function Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2013-02-28 16:55 +0000
                Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-03-01 21:38 -0500
                Re: Integer cosine function Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2013-03-04 11:08 +0000
                Re: Integer cosine function Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-03-04 03:39 -0800
                Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-03-04 20:49 -0500
                Re: Integer cosine function stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2013-03-05 10:20 +0000
                Re: Integer cosine function Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-03-07 00:12 -0800
                Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotq.cpm> - 2013-03-08 04:21 -0500
                Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-03-04 20:50 -0500
                Re: Integer cosine function Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2013-03-05 07:16 +0000
                Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotq.cpm> - 2013-03-06 17:56 -0500
                Re: Integer cosine function Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-03-07 00:24 -0800
                Re: Integer cosine function Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-03-07 07:34 -0800
                Re: Integer cosine function Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2013-02-28 12:57 +0100
                Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-28 17:07 +0100
                Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-02-28 19:37 -0800
                Re: Integer cosine function stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2013-03-01 10:56 +0000
                Re: Integer cosine function anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-03-01 13:52 +0000
                Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-03-05 17:48 -0800
                Re: Integer cosine function rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-03-13 17:44 -0400
                Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-03-01 21:36 -0500
                Re: Integer cosine function Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2013-03-01 19:14 -1000
                Re: Integer cosine function mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2013-03-02 09:34 +0200
                Re: Integer cosine function kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk - 2013-03-02 09:06 -0600
                Re: Integer cosine function Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2013-02-26 08:53 -0800
                Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-02-26 16:59 -0500
                Re: Integer cosine function albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-02-27 00:52 +0000
                Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-02-27 04:07 -0500
                Re: Integer cosine function "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2013-03-05 20:51 +0000
                Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-03-05 17:58 -0800
                Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-03-06 16:39 +0100
                Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-03-06 14:21 -0800
                Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-03-07 00:11 +0100
                Re: Integer cosine function albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-03-06 23:44 +0000
                Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-03-06 16:24 -0800
                Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-03-07 01:59 +0100
                Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-03-06 19:48 -0800
                Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-03-07 16:22 +0100
                Re: Integer cosine function "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2013-03-06 23:37 +0000
                Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-02-23 09:54 -0500
                Re: Integer cosine function "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2013-03-05 21:03 +0000
                Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-03-05 15:59 -0800
                Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-03-05 16:38 -0800
                Re: Integer cosine function Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-02-22 12:07 -0600
                Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-22 19:39 +0100
                Re: Integer cosine function "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-02-22 09:23 -1000
                Re: Integer cosine function Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-02-23 04:44 -0600
                Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-02-22 13:00 -0800
                Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-23 01:09 +0100
                Re: Integer cosine function rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-02-22 21:16 -0500
                Re: Integer cosine function rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-02-22 20:28 -0500
  Re: Integer cosine function Gary Bergstrom <g.bergstrom@ieee.org> - 2013-02-27 07:59 -0800
    Re: Integer cosine function Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2013-02-27 08:48 -0800
      Re: Integer cosine function Gary Bergstrom <g.bergstrom@ieee.org> - 2013-02-27 10:23 -0800
      Re: Integer cosine function Gary Bergstrom <g.bergstrom@ieee.org> - 2013-03-15 10:14 -0700
        Re: Integer cosine function Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2013-03-15 13:19 -0700
          Re: Integer cosine function Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2013-03-15 13:28 -0700
            Re: Integer cosine function Gary Bergstrom <g.bergstrom@ieee.org> - 2013-03-15 21:13 -0700

csiph-web