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

In article <flshva$68c$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Ed <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>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.

In general the discovery of the RISC age was, that most is
counter productive. Not only ENTER and RET(n) is not used,
even the more mundane djnz (decrement and jump on not zero)
and fancy addressing modes.
All those bizarre instructions made the life of an optimizing
compiler hell.


Groetjes Albert

--
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- like all pyramid schemes -- ultimately falters.
albert@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst