Talk About Network



Register and Login
Nick
Password
Register create new account Sign up is FREE and you can post replies, new topics, bookmark posts and more!
Recover lost password


Programming > Forth > PFE update / Re...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 5 of 8 Topic 3985 of 4053
Post > Topic >>

PFE update / Re: Is PFE still alive?

by Guido Draheim <guiodod@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Apr 19, 2008 at 01:40 PM

Josh Grams schrieb:
> 
> OK, I got the cvs version to build, so here's a patch which appears to
> fix both.  For the line numbers, it might be better to fix block-sub.c
> so that they start at one, rather than adding one every place you want
> to use the line number, but I wasn't confident that I could find all the
> references, so I didn't do that.
> 

I have applied those patches as well as others that were sent to me in the
last year. A new release 33.65 has been uploaded to the Sourceforge file
section and a Freshmeat announcement was sent.

The release is more important than that because the SBR-threading model
is fixed for x86 machines. The newer GCC 3.x/4.x versions were often
"overoptimizing" - actually, they were ignoring commandline options and
code directives so that the mix of inline-assembly used in some Forth
primitives was trashed. It was not a problem with most commercial
companies using PFE since they were either using old compilers anyway
or they were using normal ITC to have live debugging features enabled.
However, enabling SBR-threading in a modern Linux distro was impossible.

The current implementation strategy kills all of the inline-assembly
used in Forth primitives (implemented in pure C in PFE as usual).
Instead the RP-stack handling was moved to the compiling word - as
an effect the C code is less cluttered with ifdefs. The resulting
machine code is a good read now - on x86 with GCC 4.1.2 one could
configure --with-sbr-threading --with-regs=2 that assigns regTH to
EBX and regSP to ESI (including the native IP/RP). The default
configure tests do also add a -fno-builtin and -mno-leaf-framepointer
and so most Forth primitives end up to be 1 to 4 machine codes in CORE
which is pretty close to what a human programmer would write down as
original assembler code for a Forth implementation.

Sadly, SF compilefarm and HP testdrive are down so that I can not
test across all platforms that were activly supported a few years
back while working in the Tek labs. In the meantime I had kept
changes to the PFE source code to a minimum in order not to break
any of the numerous configuration options but I guess I have to face
the reality that there can be no more high testing quality for PFE
in the future. This release is only tested on x86, sorry, I hope that
the latest changes in the SBR-threading work on other platforms just
fine as the implementation is now cleaner than before.

Best Regards, Guido U. Draheim
http://www.google.de/search?q=guidod




 8 Posts in Topic:
Is PFE still alive?
Josh Grams <josh@[EMAI  2008-04-02 20:58:51 
Re: Is PFE still alive?
"David N. Williams&q  2008-04-06 10:15:41 
Re: Is PFE still alive?
Krishna Myneni <krishn  2008-04-06 10:13:32 
Re: Is PFE still alive?
Josh Grams <josh@[EMAI  2008-04-06 15:49:08 
PFE update / Re: Is PFE still alive?
Guido Draheim <guiodod  2008-04-19 13:40:22 
Re: PFE update / Re: Is PFE still alive?
Krishna Myneni <krishn  2008-04-22 22:37:04 
Re: PFE update / Re: Is PFE still alive?
"David N. Williams&q  2008-04-23 10:54:58 
Re: PFE update / Re: Is PFE still alive?
Guido Draheim <guiodod  2008-04-23 20:55:56 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
tan12V112 Fri May 16 23:38:17 CDT 2008.