On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 12:22:16PM +0100, Ethan Gardener wrote: > In the gforth documentation, at the bottom of section 13.5.1, are some > confused statements. To quote: > > > A special doubly indirect threaded version of the gforth executable is used > > for creating the non-relocatable images; you can pass the exact filename of > > this executable through the environment variable GFORTHD (default: > > gforth-ditc); if you pass a version that is not doubly indirect threaded, > > you will not get a fully relocatable image, but a data-relocatable image > > (because there is no code address offset). The normal gforth executable is > > used for creating the relocatable image; you can pass the exact filename of > > this executable through the environment variable GFORTH. > > I think "not get a fully relocatable image," should be "not get a > non-relocatable image,".
Both is true (the resulting image is data-relocatable, not fully relocatabale nor non-relocatable). I doubt that anybody has been using data-relocatable images for a long time, if ever: they are engine-specific and do not work with dynamic native code (the default), and offer no advantage over fully relocatable images. So I think we will eliminate the mention of data-relocatable images in the documentation. - anton
