Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!SCFVM.GSFC.NASA.GOV!ZMLEB From: ZMLEB@SCFVM.GSFC.NASA.GOV (Lee Brotzman) Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Floating point stack Message-ID: <9008281431.AA00691@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Date: 28 Aug 90 14:22:11 GMT References: Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 23 >> This is one area where the TC should have bitten the bullet and made a >> definite decision for or against a separate stack. > >Sigh. What to do? The committee seemed to be pretty much set on a >separate stack, but then Phil Koopman came and made an impassioned >and eloquent plea for not requiring a separate stack. Ok Phil, speak up. We know you're out there. Come out now and noone will get hurt. Explain this morbid fear of a separate floating point stack. I presume this is related to implementing floating point on a Forth chip. Give specific examples where the separate stack makes such an impact on performance in your case, that making everyone else rewite all their floating point code becomes necessary. Come on, 'fess up. Let's hear it. Speak now or forever hold your peace. (Uh ... if you haven't noticed yet, the above is light-hearted sarcasm, even though the subject I inquire about is quite serious). -- Lee Brotzman (FIGI-L Moderator) -- BITNET: ZMLEB@SCFVM Internet: zmleb@scfvm.gsfc.nasa.gov -- I'm only a contractor, don't blame me for the tax rates and don't blame -- the government for my statements.