Hi Segher, > > 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 ? > Do you agree with the above reasoning as well as the fact that I think we would all here (in the KVM team) appreciate even this small improvement in performance ? Can I send a v3 patch with the "DOTICK EXIT COMPILE," "DOTICK DOCOL COMPILE," changes ?
