Re: [f-cpu] RC5, F-CPU and srotl

[Michael Riepe <michael@stud.uni-hannover.de>]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 12:59:30PM +0200, Christophe wrote:
> I knew FORTH as being in fact a mix of compiled and interpretable code :
> 
> Usually, a FORTH code is a sequence of call addresses (there is no opcode but
> just address), so it is more compact than a native code. Everytime you create a
> FORTH function (I'm not sure about the exact term to use), there are two
> possibilities : a native code (ASM) or a FORTH code. [...]

The `1 address per word' approach doesn't really work any longer since
Forth has been ported to 32-bit machines (64 bit will be even worse,
because you waste 8 bytes for every word -- the name of the word is
shorter in most cases). Modern implementations use native code or
virtual machine code -- or both. For native code, you need a pretty good
compiler that does inline substitution, loop unrolling and the like.

-- 
 Michael "Tired" Riepe <Michael.Riepe@stud.uni-hannover.de>
 "All I wanna do is have a little fun before I die"
*************************************************************
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo@seul.org with
unsubscribe f-cpu       in the body. http://f-cpu.seul.org/