Thank you both for looking into this. I'll respond to many other points separately, but I want to address what's possibly my misunderstanding of the intent of the 0< word. My interpretation of it was that it literally means "is positive" i.e. 0 < tos. It seems that it is meant to be "is non-negative" i.e. 0 <= tos ?
On Tue, Dec 23, 2025 at 4:04 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > # -------------------------------------- > CODEWORD "0<", ZEROLESS # ( n -- ? ) > # -------------------------------------- > srai x3, x3, 31 > NEXT > > This is correct for RV32. My RISC-V codebase has the > similar code (different register) and gives the > following for the usual suspects. > > AmForth-RV 7.0 RV32IMAFC WCH CH32V307 C+ASM > Tue 15 Oct 2024 11:52:30 BST > > 1 0< . \ correct > 0 ok \ ... > > -1 0< . \ correct > -1 ok \ ... > > 0 0< . \ correct > 0 ok \ ... > In my interpretation I'd expect 0 <0 to yield -1 not 0. Maybe that's where I am wrong? Cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Amforth-devel mailing list for http://amforth.sf.net/ [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amforth-devel
