Re: [colorforth] Strange ColorForth results
- Subject: Re: [colorforth] Strange ColorForth results
- From: John Drake <jmdrake_98@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 08:42:29 -0800 (PST)
--- "Roman Pavlyuk (personal)" <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> (Best viewed in monospace font)
>
> You're right, I'm wrong.
Well...I wouldn't say that. Samuel's post (putting
in an extra literal before the '?') seems to have
fixed the problem.
> Anyway, the original wrong one
>
> : 0? ? drop if 0 ; then 1 ;
>
> 00900811 A9 EB 07 90 00 test
> eax,9007EBh
> 00900816 AD lods dword ptr
> [esi]
> 00900817 74 00 je 00900819
> 00900819 8D 76 FC lea
> esi,[esi-4]
> 0090081C 89 06 mov dword ptr
> [esi],eax
> 0090081E B8 01 00 00 00 mov eax,1
> 00900823 C3 ret
> 00900824 8D 76 FC lea
> esi,[esi-4]
> 00900827 89 06 mov dword ptr
> [esi],eax
> 00900829 B8 00 00 00 00 mov eax,0
> 0090082E C3 ret
>
> TEST uses some junk off stack.
Ok, I think I get it. By the way, how did you
get the Pentium diassembly?
> Now, my preferred one:
>
> : 0? [ 0 ] + drop if 0 ; then 1 ;
> where [ 0 ] is a yellow zero
Yep. That works. I'm still not sure when to
use yellow versus green. For instance
: 0? 0 + drop if 0 ; then 1 ;
also works. I'm guessing using the yellow
0 is more efficient? Then why not the following?
: 0? [ 0 ] + drop if [ 0 ] then [ 1 ] ;
> You can see, btw, that this is not optimized
> properly
>
> So,
> : 0? [ 0 ] + if drop 0 ; then 1 ;
Hmmmm...that doesn't work.
0 0? leaves an extra number on the stack.
: 0? [ 0 ] + if drop 0 ; then drop 1 ;
works, but I don't think that is optimal.
(Could be wrong)
Regards,
John M. Drake
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: colorforth-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: colorforth-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Main web page - http://www.colorforth.com
