Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ericbb 5191 days ago
That's interesting. Sorry for not getting it right away. It's making more sense on second reading. :)

Now I'm curious how you'd encode subroutine calls. Your example was completely inlined but the call-sequence will be critical in determining how compact the code ends up.

Also, were you thinking of using a cross-compiler and keeping the dictionary out of the DCPU-16s memory? Let me know if you create a public repo. I'd be interested to see what you come up with!
1 comments
RodgerTheGreat 5191 days ago
No worries, I should've been more detailed in my original post- what I'm describing is definitely an atypical (if not unprecedented) Forth. I agree, the call-sequence is critical. My initial thought was to ensure that we always leave the stack pointers in "return stack mode" before calling, and return them to that state before exiting a routine. Thus, procedures:

  : A   dup * ;
  : B   2 A A 1 A ;
would look like:

  A:
    SET Y, SP
    SET SP, X // switch to data
    SET PUSH, PEEK
    SET A, POP
    SET B, POP
    MUL A, B
    SET PUSH, A
    SET X, SP
    SET SP, Y // switch to return
    SET PC, POP

  B:
    SET Y, SP
    SET SP, X // switch to data
    SET PUSH, 2
    SET X, SP
    SET SP, Y // switch to return
    JSR A
    JSR A
    SET Y, SP
    SET SP, X // switch to data
    SET PUSH, 1
    SET X, SP
    SET SP, Y // switch to return
    JSR A
As you can see, a little bulky, but doable. Optimizing stack operations to make better use of the registers can get rather nasty- still thinking about the best way to approach it. I'm definitely thinking in terms of a cross-compiler, and ignoring things like defining words for the sake of simplicity, at least at first. I'll drop you a comment if I get a prototype working.
link