Hi Matthias,
Thank you for kind answers, I have to think twice before write...
Paolo
-Messaggio originale-
From: Matthias Trute
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 9:22 PM
To: Everything around amforth
Subject: Re: [Amforth] UM/MOD
> (ud u2) are 3-cells not 2, so I was wrong.
>
> Plea
> (ud u2) are 3-cells not 2, so I was wrong.
>
> Please forget my previous message.
> There is no stack underflow raised.
There is no check whether there are enough data items on
the stack available. The stack underflow happens only
inside um/mod. The interpreter checks the stack only after
the
Hi,
Am Freitag, den 29.05.2015, 13:01 +0200 schrieb Paolo Garro:
> Hello,
> the amforth reference guide says:
>
> um/mod ( ud u2 – rem quot) unsigned division ud / u2 with remainder
>
> so: two-numbers um/mod should leave two-numbers on the stack, remainder an
> quotient.
> This seems not to be
Ops...
the reference was rigth:
um/mod ( ud u2 – rem quot) unsigned division ud / u2 with remainder
(ud u2) are 3-cells not 2, so I was wrong.
Please forget my previous message.
There is no stack underflow raised.
Paolo
---
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast anti
Hello,
the amforth reference guide says:
um/mod ( ud u2 – rem quot) unsigned division ud / u2 with remainder
so: two-numbers um/mod should leave two-numbers on the stack, remainder an
quotient.
This seems not to be true.
Here is a test session:
amforth 5.8 ATmega16
> depth . 0 ok
> $ 10 um/
