Diff for /gforth/Attic/gforth.ds between versions 1.28 and 1.30

version 1.28, 1995/12/23 16:21:57 version 1.30, 1996/01/25 16:45:50
Line 7 Line 7
 @comment %**end of header (This is for running Texinfo on a region.)  @comment %**end of header (This is for running Texinfo on a region.)
   
 @ifinfo  @ifinfo
 This file documents Gforth 0.1  This file documents Gforth 0.2
   
 Copyright @copyright{} 1995 Free Software Foundation, Inc.  Copyright @copyright{} 1995 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
   
Line 41  Copyright @copyright{} 1995 Free Softwar Line 41  Copyright @copyright{} 1995 Free Softwar
 @sp 10  @sp 10
 @center @titlefont{Gforth Manual}  @center @titlefont{Gforth Manual}
 @sp 2  @sp 2
 @center for version 0.1  @center for version 0.2
 @sp 2  @sp 2
 @center Anton Ertl  @center Anton Ertl
 @center Bernd Paysan  @center Bernd Paysan
Line 77  Copyright @copyright{} 1995 Free Softwar Line 77  Copyright @copyright{} 1995 Free Softwar
 @node Top, License, (dir), (dir)  @node Top, License, (dir), (dir)
 @ifinfo  @ifinfo
 Gforth is a free implementation of ANS Forth available on many  Gforth is a free implementation of ANS Forth available on many
 personal machines. This manual corresponds to version 0.1.  personal machines. This manual corresponds to version 0.2.
 @end ifinfo  @end ifinfo
   
 @menu  @menu
Line 91  personal machines. This manual correspon Line 91  personal machines. This manual correspon
 * Emacs and Gforth::            The Gforth Mode  * Emacs and Gforth::            The Gforth Mode
 * Internals::                   Implementation details  * Internals::                   Implementation details
 * Bugs::                        How to report them  * Bugs::                        How to report them
 * Pedigree::                    Ancestors of Gforth  * Origin::                      Authors and ancestors of Gforth
 * Word Index::                  An item for each Forth word  * Word Index::                  An item for each Forth word
 * Node Index::                  An item for each node  * Node Index::                  An item for each node
 @end menu  @end menu
Line 1234  arithmetic). This behaviour is usually n Line 1234  arithmetic). This behaviour is usually n
 Gforth offers @code{+DO} and @code{U+DO} (as replacements for  Gforth offers @code{+DO} and @code{U+DO} (as replacements for
 @code{?DO}), which do not enter the loop if @var{start} is greater than  @code{?DO}), which do not enter the loop if @var{start} is greater than
 @var{limit}; @code{+DO} is for signed loop parameters, @code{U+DO} for  @var{limit}; @code{+DO} is for signed loop parameters, @code{U+DO} for
 unsigned loop parameters. These words can be implemented easily on  unsigned loop parameters.
 standard systems, so using them does not make your programs hard to  
 port; e.g.:  
 @example  
 : +DO ( compile-time: -- do-sys; run-time: n1 n2 -- )  
     POSTPONE over POSTPONE min POSTPONE ?DO ; immediate  
 @end example  
   
 @code{LOOP} can be replaced with @code{@var{n} +LOOP}; this updates the  @code{LOOP} can be replaced with @code{@var{n} +LOOP}; this updates the
 index by @var{n} instead of by 1. The loop is terminated when the border  index by @var{n} instead of by 1. The loop is terminated when the border
Line 1268  between @var{limit+1} and @var{limit} is Line 1262  between @var{limit+1} and @var{limit} is
   
 @code{ 0 0 -DO  i .  1 -LOOP}  prints nothing  @code{ 0 0 -DO  i .  1 -LOOP}  prints nothing
   
 Another alternative is @code{@var{n} S+LOOP}, where the negative  Unfortunately, @code{+DO}, @code{U+DO}, @code{-DO}, @code{U-DO} and
 case behaves symmetrical to the positive case:  @code{-LOOP} are not in the ANS Forth standard. However, an
   implementation for these words that uses only standard words is provided
 @code{-2 0 -DO  i .  -1 S+LOOP}  prints @code{0 -1}  in @file{compat/loops.fs}.
   
 The loop is terminated when the border between @var{limit@minus{}sgn(n)}  
 and @var{limit} is crossed. Unfortunately, neither @code{-LOOP} nor  
 @code{S+LOOP} are part of the ANS Forth standard, and they are not easy  
 to implement using standard words. If you want to write standard  
 programs, just avoid counting down.  
   
 @code{?DO} can also be replaced by @code{DO}. @code{DO} always enters  @code{?DO} can also be replaced by @code{DO}. @code{DO} always enters
 the loop, independent of the loop parameters. Do not use @code{DO}, even  the loop, independent of the loop parameters. Do not use @code{DO}, even
Line 1300  This is the preferred loop of native cod Line 1288  This is the preferred loop of native cod
 lazy to optimize @code{?DO} loops properly. In Gforth, this loop  lazy to optimize @code{?DO} loops properly. In Gforth, this loop
 iterates @var{n+1} times; @code{i} produces values starting with @var{n}  iterates @var{n+1} times; @code{i} produces values starting with @var{n}
 and ending with 0. Other Forth systems may behave differently, even if  and ending with 0. Other Forth systems may behave differently, even if
 they support @code{FOR} loops.  they support @code{FOR} loops. To avoid problems, don't use @code{FOR}
   loops.
   
 @node Arbitrary control structures, Calls and returns, Counted Loops, Control Structures  @node Arbitrary control structures, Calls and returns, Counted Loops, Control Structures
 @subsection Arbitrary control structures  @subsection Arbitrary control structures
Line 1346  doc-u-do Line 1335  doc-u-do
 doc-do  doc-do
 doc-for  doc-for
 doc-loop  doc-loop
 doc-s+loop  
 doc-+loop  doc-+loop
 doc--loop  doc--loop
 doc-next  doc-next
Line 1411  while Line 1399  while
 repeat  repeat
 @end example  @end example
   
 That's much easier to read, isn't it? Of course, @code{BEGIN} and  That's much easier to read, isn't it? Of course, @code{REPEAT} and
 @code{WHILE} are predefined, so in this example it would not be  @code{WHILE} are predefined, so in this example it would not be
 necessary to define them.  necessary to define them.
   
Line 1939  name produces their value. Their value c Line 1927  name produces their value. Their value c
   
 Since this syntax is supported by Gforth directly, you need not do  Since this syntax is supported by Gforth directly, you need not do
 anything to use it. If you want to port a program using this syntax to  anything to use it. If you want to port a program using this syntax to
 another ANS Forth system, use @file{anslocal.fs} to implement the syntax  another ANS Forth system, use @file{compat/anslocal.fs} to implement the
 on the other system.  syntax on the other system.
   
 Note that a syntax shown in the standard, section A.13 looks  Note that a syntax shown in the standard, section A.13 looks
 similar, but is quite different in having the order of locals  similar, but is quite different in having the order of locals
Line 3659  Gforth (direct threaded, compiled with @ Line 3647  Gforth (direct threaded, compiled with @
 @code{-DFORCE_REG}) with Win32Forth 1.2093, LMI's NT Forth (Beta, May  @code{-DFORCE_REG}) with Win32Forth 1.2093, LMI's NT Forth (Beta, May
 1994) and Eforth (with and without peephole (aka pinhole) optimization  1994) and Eforth (with and without peephole (aka pinhole) optimization
 of the threaded code); all these systems were written in assembly  of the threaded code); all these systems were written in assembly
 language. We also compared Gforth with two systems written in C:  language. We also compared Gforth with three systems written in C:
 PFE-0.9.11 (compiled with @code{gcc-2.6.3} with the default  PFE-0.9.11 (compiled with @code{gcc-2.6.3} with the default
 configuration for Linux: @code{-O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -DUSE_REGS}) and  configuration for Linux: @code{-O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -DUSE_REGS}),
 ThisForth Beta (compiled with gcc-2.6.3 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer;  ThisForth Beta (compiled with gcc-2.6.3 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer;
 ThisForth employs peephole optimization of the threaded code). We  ThisForth employs peephole optimization of the threaded code) and TILE
 benchmarked Gforth, PFE and ThisForth on a 486DX2/66 under  (compiled with @code{make opt}). We benchmarked Gforth, PFE, ThisForth
 Linux. Kenneth O'Heskin kindly provided the results for Win32Forth and  and TILE on a 486DX2/66 under Linux. Kenneth O'Heskin kindly provided
 NT Forth on a 486DX2/66 with similar memory performance under Windows  the results for Win32Forth and NT Forth on a 486DX2/66 with similar
 NT. Marcel Hendrix ported Eforth to Linux, then extended it to run the  memory performance under Windows NT. Marcel Hendrix ported Eforth to
 benchmarks, added the peephole optimizer, ran the benchmarks and  Linux, then extended it to run the benchmarks, added the peephole
 reported the results.  optimizer, ran the benchmarks and reported the results.
     
 We used four small benchmarks: the ubiquitous Sieve; bubble-sorting and  We used four small benchmarks: the ubiquitous Sieve; bubble-sorting and
 matrix multiplication come from the Stanford integer benchmarks and have  matrix multiplication come from the Stanford integer benchmarks and have
 been translated into Forth by Martin Fraeman; we used the versions  been translated into Forth by Martin Fraeman; we used the versions
 included in the TILE Forth package; and a recursive Fibonacci number  included in the TILE Forth package, but with bigger data set sizes; and
 computation for benchmarking calling performance. The following table shows  a recursive Fibonacci number computation for benchmarking calling
 the time taken for the benchmarks scaled by the time taken by Gforth (in  performance. The following table shows the time taken for the benchmarks
 other words, it shows the speedup factor that Gforth achieved over the  scaled by the time taken by Gforth (in other words, it shows the speedup
 other systems).  factor that Gforth achieved over the other systems).
   
 @example  @example
 relative        Win32-    NT       eforth       This-  relative      Win32-    NT       eforth       This-
 time      Gforth Forth Forth eforth  +opt   PFE Forth    time  Gforth Forth Forth eforth  +opt   PFE Forth  TILE
 sieve       1.00  1.39  1.14   1.39  0.85  1.78  3.18  sieve     1.00  1.39  1.14   1.39  0.85  1.78  3.18  8.58
 bubble      1.00  1.33  1.43   1.51  0.89  1.70  bubble    1.00  1.31  1.41   1.48  0.88  1.67        3.88
 matmul      1.00  1.43  1.31   1.42  1.12  2.28  matmul    1.00  1.47  1.35   1.46  1.16  2.36        4.09
 fib         1.00  1.55  1.36   1.24  1.15  1.97  3.04  fib       1.00  1.52  1.34   1.22  1.13  1.93  2.99  4.30
 @end example  @end example
   
 You may find the good performance of Gforth compared with the systems  You may find the good performance of Gforth compared with the systems
Line 3703  Gforth. The speedups achieved with peeph Line 3691  Gforth. The speedups achieved with peeph
 code are quite remarkable. Adding a peephole optimizer to Gforth should  code are quite remarkable. Adding a peephole optimizer to Gforth should
 cause similar speedups.  cause similar speedups.
   
 The speedup of Gforth over PFE and ThisForth can be easily explained  The speedup of Gforth over PFE, ThisForth and TILE can be easily
 with the self-imposed restriction to standard C (although the measured  explained with the self-imposed restriction to standard C, which makes
 implementation of PFE uses a GNU C extension: global register  efficient threading impossible (however, the measured implementation of
 variables), which makes efficient threading impossible.  Moreover,  PFE uses a GNU C extension: @ref{Global Reg Vars, , Defining Global
 current C compilers have a hard time optimizing other aspects of the  Register Variables, gcc.info, GNU C Manual}).  Moreover, current C
 ThisForth source.  compilers have a hard time optimizing other aspects of the ThisForth
   and the TILE source.
   
 Note that the performance of Gforth on 386 architecture processors  Note that the performance of Gforth on 386 architecture processors
 varies widely with the version of @code{gcc} used. E.g., @code{gcc-2.5.8}  varies widely with the version of @code{gcc} used. E.g., @code{gcc-2.5.8}
Line 3726  used here. The paper available at Line 3715  used here. The paper available at
 it also contains numbers for some native code systems. You can find  it also contains numbers for some native code systems. You can find
 numbers for Gforth on various machines in @file{Benchres}.  numbers for Gforth on various machines in @file{Benchres}.
   
 @node Bugs, Pedigree, Internals, Top  @node Bugs, Origin, Internals, Top
 @chapter Bugs  @chapter Bugs
   
 Known bugs are described in the file BUGS in the Gforth distribution.  Known bugs are described in the file BUGS in the Gforth distribution.
Line 3746  For a thorough guide on reporting bugs r Line 3735  For a thorough guide on reporting bugs r
 to Report Bugs, gcc.info, GNU C Manual}.  to Report Bugs, gcc.info, GNU C Manual}.
   
   
 @node Pedigree, Word Index, Bugs, Top  @node Origin, Word Index, Bugs, Top
 @chapter Pedigree  @chapter Authors and Ancestors of Gforth
   
   @section Authors and Contributors
   
   The Gforth project was started in mid-1992 by Bernd Paysan and Anton
   Ertl. The third major author was Jens Wilke.  Lennart Benschop (who was
   one of Gforth's first users, in mid-1993) and Stuart Ramsden inspired us
   with their continuous feedback. Lennart Benshop contributed
   @file{glosgen.fs}, while Stuart Ramsden has been working on automatic
   support for calling C libraries. Helpful comments also came from Paul
   Kleinrubatscher, Christian Pirker, Dirk Zoller and Marcel Hendrix.
   
   Gforth also owes a lot to the authors of the tools we used (GCC, CVS,
   and autoconf, among others), and to the creators of the Internet: Gforth
   was developed across the Internet, and its authors have not met
   physically yet.
   
   @section Pedigree
   
 Gforth descends from BigForth (1993) and fig-Forth. Gforth and PFE (by  Gforth descends from BigForth (1993) and fig-Forth. Gforth and PFE (by
 Dirk Zoller) will cross-fertilize each other. Of course, a significant  Dirk Zoller) will cross-fertilize each other. Of course, a significant
Line 3774  the 1802, and subsequently implemented o Line 3780  the 1802, and subsequently implemented o
 Z80.  Z80.
   
 All earlier Forth systems were custom-made, usually by Charles Moore,  All earlier Forth systems were custom-made, usually by Charles Moore,
 who discovered (as he puts it) Forth in the late 60s.  who discovered (as he puts it) Forth during the late 60s. The first full
   Forth existed in 1971.
   
 A part of the information in this section comes from @cite{The Evolution  A part of the information in this section comes from @cite{The Evolution
 of Forth} by Elizabeth D. Rather, Donald R. Colburn and Charles  of Forth} by Elizabeth D. Rather, Donald R. Colburn and Charles
Line 3782  H. Moore, presented at the HOPL-II confe Line 3789  H. Moore, presented at the HOPL-II confe
 Notices 28(3), 1993.  You can find more historical and genealogical  Notices 28(3), 1993.  You can find more historical and genealogical
 information about Forth there.  information about Forth there.
   
 @node Word Index, Node Index, Pedigree, Top  @node Word Index, Node Index, Origin, Top
 @chapter Word Index  @chapter Word Index
   
 This index is as incomplete as the manual. Each word is listed with  This index is as incomplete as the manual. Each word is listed with

Removed from v.1.28  
changed lines
  Added in v.1.30


FreeBSD-CVSweb <freebsd-cvsweb@FreeBSD.org>