1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. COMP.LANG.FORTH

  • configuring ffl for ciforth

    From albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl@21:1/5 to All on Sun Dec 1 15:37:59 2024
    https://github.com/irdvo/ffl

    ffl takes no consideration for case sensitive Forth's.
    So it took some more time, but I made same progress.
    However I got stuck upon the following:
    ---------------------------------

    [UNDEFINED] nil<>? [IF]

    0 nil= [IF]
    : nil<>? ( addr -- false | addr true = If addr is nil, then return false, else return address with true )
    state @ IF
    postpone ?dup
    ELSE
    ?dup
    THEN
    ; immediate
    [ELSE]
    : nil<>?
    dup nil<> IF
    true
    ELSE
    drop
    false
    THEN
    ;
    [THEN

    [THEN]
    --------------------------------------------------

    This combines a number of Forth stuff that I hate:
    - Defining words by inspecting if it is undefined.
    - an immediate word that it is smart
    - a word that has variable output
    - it contains ?DUP (bleh)
    - it contains POSTPONE even postponing ?DUP

    I can't progress because van Oudheusden uses this all over the place,
    literally in every file, and I can't compile this piece of code.

    ********** PROBLEM ************************
    ciforth don't know the word `` [THEN ''. *******************************************
    [I checked it and it is really in irho/ffl.]

    What gives? 40 years of software maintenance have taught me to never
    ever try to remove a defect if the specification of the module
    is not clear. You can't properly test it without a specification,
    you know.

    For what it is worth gforth gives the message:
    [THEN
    :1: Undefined word
    [THEN<<<

    Can you help me?
    --
    Temu exploits Christians: (Disclaimer, only 10 apostles)
    Last Supper Acrylic Suncatcher - 15Cm Round Stained Glass- Style Wall
    Art For Home, Office And Garden Decor - Perfect For Windows, Bars,
    And Gifts For Friends Family And Colleagues.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mhx@21:1/5 to albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl on Sun Dec 1 16:55:46 2024
    On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 14:37:59 +0000, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:

    [UNDEFINED] nil<>? [IF]
    [..]
    I can't progress because van Oudheusden uses this all over the place, literally in every file, and I can't compile this piece of code.
    [..]

    In the iForth config.fs file
    \ $Date: 2009-05-20 13:27:22 $ $Revision: 1.5 $
    it is replaced by

    : nil<>? ( addr -- false | addr true = If addr is nil, then return
    \ false, else return address with true )
    ?dup ; \ relies on inlining

    It's unlikely I wrote that definition, it was probably done
    by Dick (he did the port himself but asked for advice).

    The last comment is probably no help, but that's what you get.

    -marcel

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl@21:1/5 to mhx on Sun Dec 1 20:17:22 2024
    In article <cbdf5aa0c5eceac492781def143fe523@www.novabbs.com>,
    mhx <mhx@iae.nl> wrote:
    On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 14:37:59 +0000, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:

    [UNDEFINED] nil<>? [IF]
    [..]
    I can't progress because van Oudheusden uses this all over the place,
    literally in every file, and I can't compile this piece of code.
    [..]

    In the iForth config.fs file
    \ $Date: 2009-05-20 13:27:22 $ $Revision: 1.5 $
    it is replaced by

    : nil<>? ( addr -- false | addr true = If addr is nil, then return
    \ false, else return address with true )
    ?dup ; \ relies on inlining

    It's unlikely I wrote that definition, it was probably done
    by Dick (he did the port himself but asked for advice).

    The last comment is probably no help, but that's what you get.

    That is a bit peculiar that the code can be simplified that much.
    gforth triggered not by [THEN and to my surprise after I get rid
    of a parsing bug, lina no longer tries to compiler [THEN .
    It is hardly reassuring.
    I use the convention that 0 is a null-address. If that is the same
    in iforth I can probably use the same definition.

    After the toolbelt loads, this decompiles to
    : nil<>?
    STATE @ IF
    '?DUP , ELSE ?DUP THEN
    ; IMMEDIATE

    This amounts to the same situation in iforth.
    Is that what they mean that for a normal
    word you add the interpret time behaviour to the definition?
    Such that I can do
    'DUP? ALIAS nil<>?

    My definition of ?DUP is
    : ?DUP DUP IF DUP THEN ;
    Is it just me? I have the nagging feeling that ?DUP was fast to
    implement on microprocessors from the 80's

    Groetjes Albert





    -marcel
    --
    Temu exploits Christians: (Disclaimer, only 10 apostles)
    Last Supper Acrylic Suncatcher - 15Cm Round Stained Glass- Style Wall
    Art For Home, Office And Garden Decor - Perfect For Windows, Bars,
    And Gifts For Friends Family And Colleagues.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mhx@21:1/5 to albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl on Mon Dec 2 01:58:19 2024
    On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 19:17:22 +0000, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:

    In article <cbdf5aa0c5eceac492781def143fe523@www.novabbs.com>,
    mhx <mhx@iae.nl> wrote:
    [..]
    I use the convention that 0 is a null-address. If that is the same
    in iforth I can probably use the same definition.

    I don't know what the purpose of the word under questioning is.
    If it is to query for 'unsafe' addresses, or one specific
    unsafe address, then 0 will work...
    FORTH> 0 ?
    Caught exception 0xc0000005
    ACCESS VIOLATION
    instruction pointer = $000000000124A1DB
    RAX = $01253425 RBX = $00000000
    RCX = $00000000 RDX = $0000005F
    RSI = $01155C00 RDI = $2F06F7D0
    RBP = $01125F88 RSP = $2F06F818
    R8 = $00001320 R9 = $00000020
    R10 = $00FB0000 R11 = $00000000
    R12 = $00FB0000 R13 = $01157000
    R14 = $01136000 R15 = $01110000
    Hardware exception in ``?''+$0000000B
    **** RETURN STACK DUMP **** for MAIN-THREAD

    .. but 1 ? , or everything out of the program's memory
    is just as bad.

    On a transputer 0 ? could be perfect valid, but IIRC,
    Parsec's C compiler treated it as an exception and we
    followed them with tForth. Not sure if the FFL had this
    in mind.

    -marcel

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)