Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!willett!ForthNet
From: ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Forth Implementation
Message-ID: <709.UUL1.3#5129@willett.UUCP>
Date: 26 Mar 90 02:33:37 GMT
Organization: Latest link in the ForthNet chain.  (Pgh, PA)
Lines: 21

Category 3,  Topic 24
Message 56        Sat Mar 24, 1990
D.RUFFER [Dennis]            at 18:41 EST
 
One more detail on Intel branches Frank.  If you plan on using variable length
calls, the returns must know which was being used at compile time.  In other
words, if you use a 5 byte call you must use a FAR RETurn to get back.  I
think the 80386 automatically uses 32 bit addresses when it is in protected
mode, so that is when FAR CALLs use 7 bytes.  I haven't figured it all out
yet, so I may still be mistaken about it.

Having range checks in you conditional branches is almost required. I get real
upset when a Forth complains that my loop is too long. It would be much better
to fix the problem for me.  It might be tough for a foward branch, because you
didn't save enough bytes, but a backwards branch should be able to figure out
how to do big and small branches.

IMHO   DaR
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: 'uunet!willett!dwp' or 'willett!dwp@gateway.sei.cmu.edu'