Re: I found a FORTH stack optimzer, but could use a better version.

"Coos Haak" <chforth@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:13typijlsvp5u.t7tso9viwgnp$.dlg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Op Sun, 6 Jan 2008 08:27:20 -0800 (PST) schreef foxchip:
>
> <snip>
> > I think your argument is simply that hardware does C so the
> > job of Forth compiler is to transform Forth stack into something
> > close to what hardware designed to run C code needs to do. I
> > think your argument is simply that sane means C.
> >
> Here you go again, blaming C. You yourself know that there are
processors
> that use Forth as their native language. I think there is no machine
that
> uses C as its native language. So your reasoning is not sane at all.

No, but some cpu's have instructions that were clearly aimed at
high-level languages e.g.  x86 has  ENTER  and  RET (n)  for
handling stack frames.  The Super-8 had a Forth instruction.

Cpu manufacturers will look at their target audience and add
features they think will be attractive.  If most users use C then
that's what they'll tend to sup****t.

How much performance edge is achieved by such augmentations
I don't know, but I'm fairly confident Intel doesn't have sleepless
nights worrying about how well Forth is going to perform.  And
if they're not worrying, then they won't care (or know) if some
change they make hinders the running of Forth on its chips.