Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #49564
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.forth |
| Subject | Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style |
| Date | 2016-07-27 10:26 -0400 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <nnaga3$nvs$9@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (5 earlier) <ea119550-f0a9-4e35-9e2b-4e2a36968101@googlegroups.com> <nm07sh$n94$2@dont-email.me> <9a73adb8-c83b-4ef1-b504-9507239577f3@googlegroups.com> <26ea96b4-07db-4dbe-89f9-935c3e8bae28@googlegroups.com> <a3d3bcd6-7b25-4ea1-b22d-3e9ed6caa006@googlegroups.com> |
On 7/27/2016 5:46 AM, Mark Wills wrote: > On Tuesday, 26 July 2016 03:56:54 UTC+1, foxaudio...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 1:51:21 PM UTC-4, Mark Wills wrote: >>> On Monday, 11 July 2016 14:44:51 UTC+1, rickman wrote: >>>> On 7/11/2016 4:59 AM, Mark Wills wrote: >>>>> On Monday, 11 July 2016 03:53:53 UTC+1, rickman wrote: >>>>>> On 7/10/2016 6:00 PM, Mark Wills wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, 10 July 2016 16:50:08 UTC+1, foxaudio...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>> Sure have Mark. It's very nice. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am porting my cross compiler and my variation of camel Forth to Ti99. I always wanted TiForth to hold Tos is a register. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The cycle count looks like it will be faster. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Boy I like that TmS9900 instruction set better than x86. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Just needs a stack pointer or 2 in Hardware. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> B >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, the TMS9900 instruction set is by the nicest I've used on any processor >>>>>>> over the years. The 68K comes a close second for me :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> Funny, I still have a couple of TMS99x computers around here somewhere. >>>>>> One is a Technico 9900 single board computer that uses EPROMs. Another >>>>>> is one I designed using a 9995 built with wire wrap. I wanted to use >>>>>> the 9995 to control an IBM Selectric I got at a something-fest, but it >>>>>> was too worn out to print reliably. Seems those mechanicals don't last >>>>>> forever. Both CPU boards are sitting in my basement next to an old 8008 >>>>>> multiple board computer. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Rick C >>>>> >>>>> The 9995s and (in-particular) the 9900s are getting quite valuable now. The >>>>> 9995 is a much simpler chip to work with. IIRC it needs no supporting chippery, >>>>> whereas the 9900 at least requires a 4-phase clock. Their register to memory >>>>> architecture is beautiful. If only they had a hardware stack! (Later variants >>>>> of the 99xx family did indeed have hardware stacks and a whole raft of >>>>> additional instructions). >>>> >>>> Why would you want a hardware stack? That would be limited in size and >>>> likely function. The 8008 predecessor to the 8080 has a small hardware >>>> stack. >>>> >>>> Or do you mean a dedicated stack pointer in the chip? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Rick C >>> >>> Yes, just a stack pointer, and MOV instructions to get push/pop. >>> >>> It's fairly simple to anyway. Suppose R0 is your stack pointer register: >>> >>> LI R0,$E000 - stack is at $E000 >>> >>> to push data: >>> DECT R0 - decrement stack pointer by two (16 bit word i.e. two bytes) >>> MOV Rx,*R0 - move some register (Rx) to the memory addressed by R0 >>> >>> to pop: >>> MOV *R0+,Rx - move data at address addressed by R0 to Rx, and increase R0 by two >> >> I always feel cramped with the single level sub-routine call linked in R11. >> (Branch and link) >> Although it sucks up way too many cycles on these machines, I created a macros >> in Forth assembler that let me have what I want when I need it. >> >> \ PUSH & POP on both stacks >> : PUSH, ( src -- ) SP DECT, *SP MOV, ; >> : POP, ( dst -- ) *SP+ SWAP MOV, ; >> >> : RPUSH, ( src -- ) RP DECT, *RP MOV, ; >> : RPOP, ( dst -- ) *RP+ SWAP MOV, ; >> >> Then I extended branch & link. >> >> : CALL, ( dst -- ) R11 RPUSH, ( addr) BL, R11 RPOP, ; >> >> And return remains the same: >> : RT *R11 B, ; >> >> If only it was in hardware... >> >> BF > > Lovely. Yes, it's the ONLY feature that I miss on the 9900. I have become > so at-ease with 9900 that I can generally write pages of 9900 assembler > and it will work first time. Not because I'm uber-9900er, but because it's > a very simple, logical, orthogonal instruction set with plenty (16) of > registers. > > The SOC and SZC instructions are a little strange (no OR instruction) > but they're actually really neat. Think of setting and clearing bits using bitmasks rather than logical operations. -- Rick C
Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2016-07-08 17:44 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-09 04:27 +0000
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-07-09 10:30 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-07-09 21:56 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style mhx@iae.nl - 2016-07-10 00:30 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style mhx@iae.nl - 2016-07-10 00:34 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2016-07-10 09:10 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style endlessboomcapitalism@gmail.com - 2016-07-12 18:55 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 01:39 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2016-07-10 08:50 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 15:00 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 22:53 -0400
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 01:59 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 09:44 -0400
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 10:51 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 15:26 -0400
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 15:18 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2016-07-25 19:56 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 23:13 -0400
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style jim.brakefield@ieee.org - 2016-07-26 07:34 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 11:23 -0400
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style jim.brakefield@ieee.org - 2016-07-26 13:18 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 18:14 -0400
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 02:43 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 10:24 -0400
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 02:46 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 10:26 -0400
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 02:53 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2016-07-27 08:32 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2016-07-27 09:04 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 02:05 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2016-07-28 06:27 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 03:01 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 02:28 -0400
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 13:05 -0400
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 10:47 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-07-11 08:50 -0500
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-11 08:23 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-07-11 11:48 -0500
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-07-11 12:16 -0500
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 10:38 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-07-11 13:32 -0500
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-07-11 12:45 -0500
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 11:49 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-07-12 05:02 -0500
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-11 14:22 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-07-11 16:31 -0500
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 15:31 -0400
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-07-12 15:55 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 22:48 -0400
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-08-10 01:54 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 19:32 -0400
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-08-28 22:55 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-29 00:34 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-07-11 11:58 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-07-12 15:59 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2016-07-26 00:40 +0000
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-07-25 21:16 -1000
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2016-08-21 23:04 +0000
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-07-26 03:34 -0500
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2016-08-21 23:13 +0000
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-07-26 16:51 +0000
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 13:51 -0400
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2016-08-21 23:38 +0000
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-08-22 12:51 +0000
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 22:50 -0400
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 16:32 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 10:19 -0400
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-07-27 09:05 -1000
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-07-12 15:51 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 03:34 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 22:51 -0400
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 01:56 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2016-07-11 08:03 -0700
csiph-web