Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!willett!ForthNet
From: ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: ANS TC Magnet for Tick, >BODY, ['],etc
Message-ID: <2460.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 4 Mar 91 13:20:18 GMT
Organization: (n.) to be organized.  But that's not important right now.
Lines: 23

Category 10,  Topic 25
Message 18        Sat Mar 02, 1991
B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad]          at 22:23 EST
 
> 1) I think the loss of the ability to compile bytes is a great
 > loss.

Well, in the system I was speaking of, you didn't lose that ability.
Structures had no alignment restrictions other than _starting_ at a word
boundary.  Which means that yes, if you were careless, you could create a
structure which would lead to an addressing violation.

What was lost was the ability to, for example, compile a BRANCH with a one-
byte offset ("in-line" parameter).  This was because the thread needed to
maintain word-alignment.  You didn't lose any capabilities with this
restriction, just some micro-optimizations of memory usage.

- Brad
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett.  You *cannot* reply to the author
using e-mail.  Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions
the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, etc.).
Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us _or_ uunet!willett!dwp