Hi, On 2024-02-23 14:57:23, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > I think both changes are bad. They reduce abstraction, for no reason at > all. > > If you think the compiler should inline more, or do better optimisations > even, work on *that*, don't do one unimportant case of it manually. > > I never made the indirect threading engine in Paflof faster, because it > was plenty fast already. In SLOF, almost everything is compiled at > runtime, and if it is important to speed that up there are some well- > known usual caching tricks to make things *factors* faster. The main > focus points for SLOF were to have an engine that is easily adapted for > different purposes (and it was! Ask me about it :-) ), and to have > things using it as debuggable as possible (you really need some hardware > debugging thing to make it real easy; I had one back then. You need to > be able to look at all memory state after a stop (a crash, perhaps), and > seeing all CPU registers is useful as well. > > If you want to improve engine.in, get rid of it completely? Make the > whol thing cross-compile perhaps. Everything from source code. The > engine.in thing is essentially an already compiled thing (but not > relocated yet, not fixed to some address), which is still in mostly > obvious 1-1 correspondence to it source code, which can be easily > "uncompiled" as well. Like: :-). Getting rid of it completely and making the whole thing cross-compile would require more time that I'm not so sure that I or even my manager would be able to spare in our project. > > col(+COMP STATE @ 1 STATE +! 0BRANCH(1) EXIT HERE THERE ! COMP-BUFFER DOTO HERE COMPILE DOCOL) > col(-COMP -1 STATE +! STATE @ 0BRANCH(1) EXIT COMPILE EXIT THERE @ DOTO HERE COMP-BUFFER EXECUTE) > > : +comp ( -- ) > state @ 1 state +! IF exit THEN > here there ! > comp-buffer to here > compile docol ; > : -comp ( -- ) > -1 state +! > state @ IF exit THEN > compile exit > there @ to here > comp-buffer execute ; > > "['] semicolon compile," is not something a user would ever write. A > user would write "compile exit". It is standard Forth, it works > anywhere. It is much more idiomatic.. Okay, I can accept the fact that maybe we should use EXIT instead of SEMICOLON. But at least can we remove the invocation of the "COMPILE" keyword in +COMP and -COMP ? The rest of the compiler in slof/engine.in uses the standard "DOTICK <word> COMPILE," format so why cannot we use this for -COMP as well as +COMP ? > > > Segher
