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

"Stephen Pelc" <stephenXXX@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:478201e9.1788292609@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For Forth to Forth translation look at Timbre by Rob Chapman. Others
> have used it for host and embedded compilation.
>

Actually, you may have referred me to the works of the correct person.  It
appears that Rob Chapman's "Stack Quarks" Sept. 15, 1995 are the solution
to
optimizing FORTH stack words for x86 assembly.  He defines six words:

  DIP DRIP NUP NIP TUCK TAKE

Each of these corresponds 1:1 to x86 assembly instructions, as the C
versions in "Script.3" shows, i.e., they correspond to mov, push, or pop.
NIP and TUCK appear to be the standard definitions.  DROP, DUP, SWAP,
OVER,
are defined in terms of the six.  I don't see definitions for ROT, or
-ROT.
From the article, it seems he has/had a Timbre script for converting FORTH
stack instructions similar to the java app.  The results using that app
showed that DUP,DROP,OVER correspond 1:1 to x86 assembly, but that SWAP,
or
another stack ****ft instruction (ROT,-ROT,ROLL) was im****tant.  Relocating
the physical stack from location 0 to 2 of the virtual stack does
wonders...

http://www.compusmart.ab.ca/rc/Timbre/ContentPages/Timbre/SQP/StackQuarksPaper.html

Oddly, I see no discussion of this paper or his FORTH words in the
archives
of c.l.f. (?!?!)  Or, on usenet in general...


Rod Pemberton