Am 03.04.2011 um 12:27 schrieb D Nyberg:
> I think you would also see a huge speed increase if you defined
> constant
> named "1" and tried it again too. That used to be standard in F79 and
> 83, though it was more about size than speed.
>
> On 4/3/2011 4:16:17 AM, pito ([email protected]) wrote:
>> : exa1 1 1 + . ;
>> compilation 55sec (avrstudio window hidden)
>> run ~0.3sek
>>
>> : exa2 1000 1000 3000 + - . ;
>> compilation 78sec (avrstudio window hidden)
>> run ~0.3sek
>>
>> Quite surprised the write to flash works with avrstudio
>> simulator(v4, b716). I have ~250 words more in flash then the basic
>> clean amforth 4.2 compilation.
If we do it like ZERO we get:
; ( -- 1 ) Arithmetics
; R( -- )
; leaves the value 1 on TOS
VE_ONE:
.dw $ff01
.db "1",0
.dw VE_HEAD
.set VE_HEAD = VE_ONE
XT_ONE:
.dw PFA_ONE
PFA_ONE:
savetos
PFA_ONE1:
ldi tosl,1
ldi tosh,0
jmp DO_NEXT
But a forth version compiles two cells shorter:
; ( -- 1 )
; R( -- )
; leaves the value 1 on TOS
VE_1:
.dw $FF01
.db "1",0
.dw VE_HEAD
.set VE_HEAD = VE_1
XT_1:
.dw PFA_DOVARIABLE
PFA_1:
.dw $1
; forth:
; 1 constant 1
Wonder which one is faster?
Michael
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Create and publish websites with WebMatrix
Use the most popular FREE web apps or write code yourself;
WebMatrix provides all the features you need to develop and
publish your website. http://p.sf.net/sfu/ms-webmatrix-sf
_______________________________________________
Amforth-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amforth-devel
