Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!willett!ForthNet
From: ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Optimization
Message-ID: <576.UUL1.3#5129@willett.UUCP>
Date: 27 Feb 90 23:55:29 GMT
Organization: Latest link in the ForthNet chain.  (Pgh, PA)
Lines: 29


 Date: 02-26-90 (10:45)              Number: 1759 (Echo)
   To: MIKE SPERL                    Refer#: 1755
 From: PETE KOZIAR                     Read: NO
 Subj: STUFF                         Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE

 In thinking back on our conversation, I hope I didn't come across as 
 being too critical.  My comments were supposed to be more on the level 
 of "have you thought about this..." than "YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG." 

 I guess I am sensitive to this, since I have witnessed in my career two 
 major systems that had to be scrappped because they were in 
 assembly-language, and one of them was supposedly in FORTH even though 
 all the words were CODE words.  We just have to be a little careful 
 that we don't go for that extra clock cycle at the expense of 
 maintainability. 

 After saying that, there is a way to shave a few cycles off of UNNEST 
 using LES IP, 0 [BP]  ADD BP, # 2 instead of: 

   XCHG  BP, SP 
   POP   ES             \ These may me in the reverse order -- 
   POP   IP             \   I don't have a listing handy. 
   XCHG  BP, SP 
 ---
  * Via Qwikmail 2.01  The Baltimore Sun 
-----
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'