Diff for /gforth/Attic/gforth.ds between versions 1.2 and 1.3

version 1.2, 1994/11/14 19:01:16 version 1.3, 1994/11/23 16:54:39
Line 746  entry represents a backward branch targe Line 746  entry represents a backward branch targe
 building any control structure possible (except control structures that  building any control structure possible (except control structures that
 need storage, like calls, coroutines, and backtracking).  need storage, like calls, coroutines, and backtracking).
 if  doc-if
 ahead  doc-ahead
 then  doc-then
 begin  doc-begin
 until  doc-until
 again  doc-again
 cs-pick  doc-cs-pick
 cs-roll  doc-cs-roll
 On many systems control-flow stack items take one word, in gforth they  On many systems control-flow stack items take one word, in gforth they
 currently take three (this may change in the future). Therefore it is a  currently take three (this may change in the future). Therefore it is a
Line 763  words. Line 763  words.
 Some standard control structure words are built from these words:  Some standard control structure words are built from these words:
 else  doc-else
 while  doc-while
 repeat  doc-repeat
 Counted loop words constitute a separate group of words:  Counted loop words constitute a separate group of words:
 ?do  doc-?do
 do  doc-do
 for  doc-for
 loop  doc-loop
 s+loop  doc-s+loop
 +loop  doc-+loop
 next  doc-next
 leave  doc-leave
 ?leave  doc-?leave
 unloop  doc-unloop
 undo  doc-undo
 The standard does not allow using @code{cs-pick} and @code{cs-roll} on  The standard does not allow using @code{cs-pick} and @code{cs-roll} on
 @i{do-sys}. Our system allows it, but it's your job to ensure that for  @i{do-sys}. Our system allows it, but it's your job to ensure that for
 every @code{?DO} etc. there is exactly one @code{UNLOOP} on any path  every @code{?DO} etc. there is exactly one @code{UNLOOP} on any path
 through the program (@code{LOOP} etc. compile an @code{UNLOOP}). Also,  through the definition (@code{LOOP} etc. compile an @code{UNLOOP} on the
 you have to ensure that all @code{LEAVE}s are resolved (by using one of  fall-through path). Also, you have to ensure that all @code{LEAVE}s are
 the loop-ending words or @code{UNDO}).  resolved (by using one of the loop-ending words or @code{UNDO}).
 Another group of control structure words are  Another group of control structure words are
 case  doc-case
 endcase  doc-endcase
 of  doc-of
 endof  doc-endof
 @i{case-sys} and @i{of-sys} cannot be processed using @code{cs-pick} and  @i{case-sys} and @i{of-sys} cannot be processed using @code{cs-pick} and
 @code{cs-roll}.  @code{cs-roll}.
   @subsubsection Programming Style
   In order to ensure readability we recommend that you do not create
   arbitrary control structures directly, but define new control structure
   words for the control structure you want and use these words in your
   E.g., instead of writing
   if [ 1 cs-roll ]
   again then
   @end example
   we recommend defining control structure words, e.g.,
   : while ( dest -- orig dest )
    1 cs-roll ; immediate
   : repeat ( orig dest -- )
    POSTPONE again
    POSTPONE then ; immediate
   @end example
   and then using these to create the control structure:
   @end example
   That's much easier to read, isn't it? Of course, @code{BEGIN} and
   @code{WHILE} are predefined, so in this example it would not be
   necessary to define them.
   @subsection Calls and returns
   A definition can be called simply be writing the name of the
   definition. When the end of the definition is reached, it returns. An earlier return can be forced using
   Don't forget to clean up the return stack and @code{UNLOOP} any
   outstanding @code{?DO}...@code{LOOP}s before @code{EXIT}ing. The
   primitive compiled by @code{EXIT} is
   @subsection Exception Handling
 @node Locals  @node Locals
 @section Locals  @section Locals
Line 923  says. If @code{UNREACHABLE} is used wher Line 984  says. If @code{UNREACHABLE} is used wher
 lie to the compiler), buggy code will be produced.  lie to the compiler), buggy code will be produced.
 Another problem with this rule is that at @code{BEGIN}, the compiler  Another problem with this rule is that at @code{BEGIN}, the compiler
 does not know which locals will be visible on the incoming back-edge  does not know which locals will be visible on the incoming
 . All problems discussed in the following are due to this ignorance of  back-edge. All problems discussed in the following are due to this
 the compiler (we discuss the problems using @code{BEGIN} loops as  ignorance of the compiler (we discuss the problems using @code{BEGIN}
 examples; the discussion also applies to @code{?DO} and other  loops as examples; the discussion also applies to @code{?DO} and other
 loops). Perhaps the most insidious example is:  loops). Perhaps the most insidious example is:
 @example  @example
Line 1299  programs harder to read, and easier to m Line 1360  programs harder to read, and easier to m
 merit of this syntax is that it is easy to implement using the ANS Forth  merit of this syntax is that it is easy to implement using the ANS Forth
 locals wordset.  locals wordset.
   @node Internals
   @chapter Internals
   Reading this section is not necessary for programming with gforth. It
   should be helpful for finding your way in the gforth sources.
   @section Portability
   One of the main goals of the effort is availability across a wide range
   of personal machines. fig-Forth, and, to a lesser extent, F83, achieved
   this goal by manually coding the engine in assembly language for several
   then-popular processors. This approach is very labor-intensive and the
   results are short-lived due to progress in computer architecture.
   Others have avoided this problem by coding in C, e.g., Mitch Bradley
   (cforth), Mikael Patel (TILE) and Dirk Zoller (pfe). This approach is
   particularly popular for UNIX-based Forths due to the large variety of
   architectures of UNIX machines. Unfortunately an implementation in C
   does not mix well with the goals of efficiency and with using
   traditional techniques: Indirect or direct threading cannot be expressed
   in C, and switch threading, the fastest technique available in C, is
   significantly slower. Another problem with C is that it's very
   cumbersome to express double integer arithmetic.
   Fortunately, there is a portable language that does not have these
   limitations: GNU C, the version of C processed by the GNU C compiler
   (@pxref{C Extensions, , Extensions to the C Language Family, gcc.info,
   GNU C Manual}). Its labels as values feature (@pxref{Labels as Values, ,
   Labels as Values, gcc.info, GNU C Manual}) makes direct and indirect
   threading possible, its @code{long long} type (@pxref{Long Long, ,
   Double-Word Integers, gcc.info, GNU C Manual}) corresponds to Forths
   double numbers. GNU C is available for free on all important (and many
   unimportant) UNIX machines, VMS, 80386s running MS-DOS, the Amiga, and
   the Atari ST, so a Forth written in GNU C can run on all these
   machines@footnote{Due to Apple's look-and-feel lawsuit it is not
   available on the Mac (@pxref{Boycott, , Protect Your Freedom--Fight
   ``Look And Feel'', gcc.info, GNU C Manual}).}.
   Writing in a portable language has the reputation of producing code that
   is slower than assembly. For our Forth engine we repeatedly looked at
   the code produced by the compiler and eliminated most compiler-induced
   inefficiencies by appropriate changes in the source-code.
   However, register allocation cannot be portably influenced by the
   programmer, leading to some inefficiencies on register-starved
   machines. We use explicit register declarations (@pxref{Explicit Reg
   Vars, , Variables in Specified Registers, gcc.info, GNU C Manual}) to
   improve the speed on some machines. They are turned on by using the
   @code{gcc} switch @code{-DFORCE_REG}. Unfortunately, this feature not
   only depends on the machine, but also on the compiler version: On some
   machines some compiler versions produce incorrect code when certain
   explicit register declarations are used. So by default
   @code{-DFORCE_REG} is not used.
   @section Threading
   GNU C's labels as values extension (available since @code{gcc-2.0},
   @pxref{Labels as Values, , Labels as Values, gcc.info, GNU C Manual})
   makes it possible to take the address of @var{label} by writing
   @code{&&@var{label}}.  This address can then be used in a statement like
   @code{goto *@var{address}}. I.e., @code{goto *&&x} is the same as
   @code{goto x}.
   With this feature an indirect threaded NEXT looks like:
   cfa = *ip++;
   ca = *cfa;
   goto *ca;
   @end example
   For those unfamiliar with the names: @code{ip} is the Forth instruction
   pointer; the @code{cfa} (code-field address) corresponds to ANS Forths
   execution token and points to the code field of the next word to be
   executed; The @code{ca} (code address) fetched from there points to some
   executable code, e.g., a primitive or the colon definition handler
   Direct threading is even simpler:
   ca = *ip++;
   goto *ca;
   @end example
   Of course we have packaged the whole thing neatly in macros called
   @code{NEXT} and @code{NEXT1} (the part of NEXT after fetching the cfa).
   @subsection Scheduling
   There is a little complication: Pipelined and superscalar processors,
   i.e., RISC and some modern CISC machines can process independent
   instructions while waiting for the results of an instruction. The
   compiler usually reorders (schedules) the instructions in a way that
   achieves good usage of these delay slots. However, on our first tries
   the compiler did not do well on scheduling primitives. E.g., for
   @code{+} implemented as
   @end example
   the NEXT comes strictly after the other code, i.e., there is nearly no
   scheduling. After a little thought the problem becomes clear: The
   compiler cannot know that sp and ip point to different addresses (and
   the version of @code{gcc} we used would not know it even if it could),
   so it could not move the load of the cfa above the store to the
   TOS. Indeed the pointers could be the same, if code on or very near the
   top of stack were executed. In the interest of speed we chose to forbid
   this probably unused ``feature'' and helped the compiler in scheduling:
   NEXT is divided into the loading part (@code{NEXT_P1}) and the goto part
   (@code{NEXT_P2}). @code{+} now looks like:
   @end example
   This can be scheduled optimally by the compiler (see \sect{TOS}).
   This division can be turned off with the switch @code{-DCISC_NEXT}. This
   switch is on by default on machines that do not profit from scheduling
   (e.g., the 80386), in order to preserve registers.
   @subsection Direct or Indirect Threaded?
   Both! After packaging the nasty details in macro definitions we
   realized that we could switch between direct and indirect threading by
   simply setting a compilation flag (@code{-DDIRECT_THREADED}) and
   defining a few machine-specific macros for the direct-threading case.
   On the Forth level we also offer access words that hide the
   differences between the threading methods (@pxref{Threading Words}).
   Indirect threading is implemented completely
   machine-independently. Direct threading needs routines for creating
   jumps to the executable code (e.g. to docol or dodoes). These routines
   are inherently machine-dependent, but they do not amount to many source
   lines. I.e., even porting direct threading to a new machine is a small
   @subsection DOES>
   One of the most complex parts of a Forth engine is @code{dodoes}, i.e.,
   the chunk of code executed by every word defined by a
   @code{CREATE}...@code{DOES>} pair. The main problem here is: How to find
   the Forth code to be executed, i.e. the code after the @code{DOES>} (the
   DOES-code)? There are two solutions:
   In fig-Forth the code field points directly to the dodoes and the
   DOES-code address is stored in the cell after the code address
   (i.e. at cfa cell+). It may seem that this solution is illegal in the
   Forth-79 and all later standards, because in fig-Forth this address
   lies in the body (which is illegal in these standards). However, by
   making the code field larger for all words this solution becomes legal
   again. We use this approach for the indirect threaded version. Leaving
   a cell unused in most words is a bit wasteful, but on the machines we
   are targetting this is hardly a problem. The other reason for having a
   code field size of two cells is to avoid having different image files
   for direct and indirect threaded systems (@pxref{image-format}).
   The other approach is that the code field points or jumps to the cell
   after @code{DOES}. In this variant there is a jump to @code{dodoes} at
   this address. @code{dodoes} can then get the DOES-code address by
   computing the code address, i.e., the address of the jump to dodoes,
   and add the length of that jump field. A variant of this is to have a
   call to @code{dodoes} after the @code{DOES>}; then the return address
   (which can be found in the return register on RISCs) is the DOES-code
   address. Since the two cells available in the code field are usually
   used up by the jump to the code address in direct threading, we use
   this approach for direct threading. We did not want to add another
   cell to the code field.
   @section Primitives
   @subsection Automatic Generation
   Since the primitives are implemented in a portable language, there is no
   longer any need to minimize the number of primitives. On the contrary,
   having many primitives is an advantage: speed. In order to reduce the
   number of errors in primitives and to make programming them easier, we
   provide a tool, the primitive generator (@file{prims2x.fs}), that
   automatically generates most (and sometimes all) of the C code for a
   primitive from the stack effect notation.  The source for a primitive
   has the following form:
   @var{Forth-name}        @var{stack-effect}      @var{category}  [@var{pronounc.}]
   [@code{""}@var{glossary entry}@code{""}]
   @var{C code}
   @var{Forth code}]
   @end format
   The items in brackets are optional. The category and glossary fields
   are there for generating the documentation, the Forth code is there
   for manual implementations on machines without GNU C. E.g., the source
   for the primitive @code{+} is:
   +    n1 n2 -- n    core    plus
   n = n1+n2;
   @end example
   This looks like a specification, but in fact @code{n = n1+n2} is C
   code. Our primitive generation tool extracts a lot of information from
   the stack effect notations@footnote{We use a one-stack notation, even
   though we have separate data and floating-point stacks; The separate
   notation can be generated easily from the unified notation.}: The number
   of items popped from and pushed on the stack, their type, and by what
   name they are referred to in the C code. It then generates a C code
   prelude and postlude for each primitive. The final C code for @code{+}
   looks like this:
   I_plus: /* + ( n1 n2 -- n ) */  /* label, stack effect */
   /*  */                          /* documentation */
   DEF_CA                          /* definition of variable ca (indirect threading) */
   Cell n1;                        /* definitions of variables */
   Cell n2;
   Cell n;
   n1 = (Cell) sp[1];              /* input */
   n2 = (Cell) TOS;
   sp += 1;                        /* stack adjustment */
   NAME("+")                       /* debugging output (with -DDEBUG) */
   n = n1+n2;                      /* C code taken from the source */
   NEXT_P1;                        /* NEXT part 1 */
   TOS = (Cell)n;                  /* output */
   NEXT_P2;                        /* NEXT part 2 */
   @end example
   This looks long and inefficient, but the GNU C compiler optimizes quite
   well and produces optimal code for @code{+} on, e.g., the R3000 and the
   HP RISC machines: Defining the @code{n}s does not produce any code, and
   using them as intermediate storage also adds no cost.
   There are also other optimizations, that are not illustrated by this
   example: Assignments between simple variables are usually for free (copy
   propagation). If one of the stack items is not used by the primitive
   (e.g.  in @code{drop}), the compiler eliminates the load from the stack
   (dead code elimination). On the other hand, there are some things that
   the compiler does not do, therefore they are performed by
   @file{prims2x.fs}: The compiler does not optimize code away that stores
   a stack item to the place where it just came from (e.g., @code{over}).
   While programming a primitive is usually easy, there are a few cases
   where the programmer has to take the actions of the generator into
   account, most notably @code{?dup}, but also words that do not (always)
   fall through to NEXT.
   @subsection TOS Optimization
   An important optimization for stack machine emulators, e.g., Forth
   engines, is keeping  one or more of the top stack items in
   registers.  If a word has the stack effect {@var{in1}...@var{inx} @code{--}
   @var{out1}...@var{outy}}, keeping the top @var{n} items in registers
   is better than keeping @var{n-1} items, if @var{x>=n} and @var{y>=n},
   due to fewer loads from and stores to the stack.
   @item is slower than keeping @var{n-1} items, if @var{x<>y} and @var{x<n} and
   @var{y<n}, due to additional moves between registers.
   @end itemize
   In particular, keeping one item in a register is never a disadvantage,
   if there are enough registers. Keeping two items in registers is a
   disadvantage for frequent words like @code{?branch}, constants,
   variables, literals and @code{i}. Therefore our generator only produces
   code that keeps zero or one items in registers. The generated C code
   covers both cases; the selection between these alternatives is made at
   C-compile time using the switch @code{-DUSE_TOS}. @code{TOS} in the C
   code for @code{+} is just a simple variable name in the one-item case,
   otherwise it is a macro that expands into @code{sp[0]}. Note that the
   GNU C compiler tries to keep simple variables like @code{TOS} in
   registers, and it usually succeeds, if there are enough registers.
   The primitive generator performs the TOS optimization for the
   floating-point stack, too (@code{-DUSE_FTOS}). For floating-point
   operations the benefit of this optimization is even larger:
   floating-point operations take quite long on most processors, but can be
   performed in parallel with other operations as long as their results are
   not used. If the FP-TOS is kept in a register, this works. If
   it is kept on the stack, i.e., in memory, the store into memory has to
   wait for the result of the floating-point operation, lengthening the
   execution time of the primitive considerably.
   The TOS optimization makes the automatic generation of primitives a
   bit more complicated. Just replacing all occurrences of @code{sp[0]} by
   @code{TOS} is not sufficient. There are some special cases to
   @item In the case of @code{dup ( w -- w w )} the generator must not
   eliminate the store to the original location of the item on the stack,
   if the TOS optimization is turned on.
   @item Primitives with stack effects of the form {@code{--}
   @var{out1}...@var{outy}} must store the TOS to the stack at the start.
   Likewise, primitives with the stack effect {@var{in1}...@var{inx} @code{--}}
   must load the TOS from the stack at the end. But for the null stack
   effect @code{--} no stores or loads should be generated.
   @end itemize
   @subsection Produced code
   To see what assembly code is produced for the primitives on your machine
   with your compiler and your flag settings, type @code{make engine.s} and
   look at the resulting file @file{engine.c}.
   @section System Architecture
   Our Forth system consists not only of primitives, but also of
   definitions written in Forth. Since the Forth compiler itself belongs
   to those definitions, it is not possible to start the system with the
   primitives and the Forth source alone. Therefore we provide the Forth
   code as an image file in nearly executable form. At the start of the
   system a C routine loads the image file into memory, sets up the
   memory (stacks etc.) according to information in the image file, and
   starts executing Forth code.
   The image file format is a compromise between the goals of making it
   easy to generate image files and making them portable. The easiest way
   to generate an image file is to just generate a memory dump. However,
   this kind of image file cannot be used on a different machine, or on
   the next version of the engine on the same machine, it even might not
   work with the same engine compiled by a different version of the C
   compiler. We would like to have as few versions of the image file as
   possible, because we do not want to distribute many versions of the
   same image file, and to make it easy for the users to use their image
   files on many machines. We currently need to create a different image
   file for machines with different cell sizes and different byte order
   (little- or big-endian)@footnote{We consider adding information to the
   image file that enables the loader to change the byte order.}.
   Forth code that is going to end up in a portable image file has to
   comply to some restrictions: addresses have to be stored in memory
   with special words (@code{A!}, @code{A,}, etc.) in order to make the
   code relocatable. Cells, floats, etc., have to be stored at the
   natural alignment boundaries@footnote{E.g., store floats (8 bytes) at
   an address dividable by~8. This happens automatically in our system
   when you use the ANSI alignment words.}, in order to avoid alignment
   faults on machines with stricter alignment. The image file is produced
   by a metacompiler (@file{cross.fs}).
   So, unlike the image file of Mitch Bradleys @code{cforth}, our image
   file is not directly executable, but has to undergo some manipulations
   during loading. Address relocation is performed at image load-time, not
   at run-time. The loader also has to replace tokens standing for
   primitive calls with the appropriate code-field addresses (or code
   addresses in the case of direct threading).
 @contents  @contents
 @bye  @bye

Removed from v.1.2  
changed lines
  Added in v.1.3

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