00:00:00 --- log: started forth/12.01.09 00:53:20 --- join: ttmrichter (~ttmrichte@2001:41c8:1:5696::169) joined #forth 01:55:34 --- quit: ttmrichter (Remote host closed the connection) 01:56:49 --- join: ttmrichter (~ttmrichte@2001:41c8:1:5696::169) joined #forth 05:15:43 --- quit: ttmrichter (Remote host closed the connection) 05:16:29 --- join: ttmrichter (~ttmrichte@2001:41c8:1:5696::169) joined #forth 05:24:48 --- quit: segher (Read error: Operation timed out) 05:30:35 --- join: nighty- (~nighty@static-68-179-124-161.ptr.terago.net) joined #forth 05:32:40 --- join: segher (~segher@5ED3C8DF.cm-7-4d.dynamic.ziggo.nl) joined #forth 06:06:32 --- quit: ttmrichter (Ping timeout: 248 seconds) 06:15:54 --- join: ttmrichter (~ttmrichte@2001:41c8:1:5696::169) joined #forth 06:56:30 --- quit: ttmrichter (Quit: Leaving) 07:00:08 Reading koopmans book on stack computers; 07:00:29 "Hardwired stack machines usually exploit this situation by using pre-decoded instruction formats to further simplify control hardware and increase flexibility." 07:01:12 So when would the machinecode instructions be decoded? 07:02:15 http://www.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/stack_computers/sec3_2.html#3234 - source 09:16:49 --- join: tathi (~josh@dsl-216-227-118-248.fairpoint.net) joined #forth 09:20:37 xpolol: He explains it right there, doesn't he? You use a wider-than-necessary opcode, and have a couple of bits which say how the stack depth changes, a couple of bits which say where the output comes from (rstack, ALU, second stack item, etc.), a few which select the ALU operation, that kind of thing. 09:23:28 I think it's supposed to be faster because you don't need a full-width multiplexer which selects the opcode which then selects all the bits and pieces of the operation; you just have a bunch of two- or three-bit multiplexers which select individual things. 09:23:55 I'm not sure how relevant it is these days, but I know next to nothing about logic/hardware design, so... 09:46:06 The problem is I don't quite get that particular explenation, also he didn't mention those bits you were just talking about. 09:47:15 anyways, I'd expect that these machine-level instructions (e.g dup swap etc..) would have to be further decoded into this "microcode-like format" 09:48:50 these "microcode-like format" instructions* 09:49:24 --- join: foxes (~fox@221.194.177.21) joined #forth 09:51:47 anyways I think I understand it now when you said it that way. Thanks tathi :-) 09:53:30 --- quit: Fox78 (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) 10:00:17 I guess it's not that obvious -- when I read that the first time I think I had already seen a couple of hardware designs which did it that way... 10:13:01 :-) 10:41:11 --- join: Fox78 (~fox@xz-18-245-a8.bta.net.cn) joined #forth 10:43:32 --- quit: foxes (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) 10:49:56 --- join: foxes (~fox@221.194.177.21) joined #forth 10:53:26 --- quit: Fox78 (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) 11:05:48 --- quit: nighty- (Quit: Disappears in a puff of smoke) 11:06:41 --- join: nighty- (~nighty@static-68-179-124-161.ptr.terago.net) joined #forth 12:36:24 --- quit: xpolol (Ping timeout: 248 seconds) 12:37:25 --- join: xpolol (~xpololz@50.80-203-124.nextgentel.com) joined #forth 12:44:57 --- join: Fox78 (~fox@xz-18-245-a8.bta.net.cn) joined #forth 12:47:47 --- quit: foxes (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) 15:00:47 --- quit: nighty- (Quit: Disappears in a puff of smoke) 16:34:17 --- quit: tathi (Quit: leaving) 17:08:06 --- join: ttmrichter (~ttmrichte@2001:41c8:1:5696::169) joined #forth 17:39:48 --- join: foxes (~fox@125.39.66.51) joined #forth 17:43:17 --- quit: Fox78 (Ping timeout: 248 seconds) 18:04:17 --- join: ASau (~user@95-26-61-154.broadband.corbina.ru) joined #forth 18:52:22 --- join: karswell (~coat@93-97-29-243.zone5.bethere.co.uk) joined #forth 19:14:56 --- quit: cataska (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) 19:22:03 --- join: cataska (~cataska@210.64.6.233) joined #forth 22:44:38 --- join: DGASAU (~user@91.218.144.129) joined #forth 23:11:36 --- join: flip214 (~marek@unaffiliated/flip214) joined #forth 23:11:55 Hello! Is there a swank server for forth? 23:26:13 Are you kidding? 23:55:50 no? 23:56:39 Swank? Isn't that an emacs thing? 23:56:49 I'd just like something that takes commands via a TCP socket and evaluates them ... and swank is an obvious choice 23:57:19 ttmrichter: you're thinking of slime - swank is the lisp (and R, etc ...) side of this 23:57:41 Does anything other than emacs/slime use swank? 23:57:48 this question is not about s-expressions, just about saying Eval in a text editor 23:57:57 ttmrichter: yes, there's slimv for vim, too 23:58:09 and there's swank for R ... 23:58:20 so I thought there might be a swank for forth, too 23:59:59 --- log: ended forth/12.01.09