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

In article <flus86$366$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Rod Pemberton <do_not_have@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>"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.

Interesting idea!

>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...

Isn't that dangerous in the situation of the x86 where the stack is
used by interrupts too?

>
>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
>

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