/ threaded /
threaded code categories
[the notes in brackets are from mlg]
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:35:16 GMT
I think we are using the terms differently. I am using the
definitions that have traditionally been used in Forth:
DTC, Direct Threaded Code, address lists processed by an
inner interpreter where colon definitions begin with inlined
code or a call to a routine (docolon) to process the threaded list.
ITC, Indirect Threaded Code, address lists processed by an
inner interpreter where one level of indirection is added
at the start of a word. The indirect reference points to
the list of addresses to be interpreted. An extra register
or memory location is needed for the indirect reference.
STC, Subroutine Threaded Code, CALL/RET mechanism is used
to thread code. Colon definitions use CALL/RET.
[STCI, Subroutine Threaded Code with Inlining. For long
definitions, a CALL instruction is compiled,
for example, CALL ' READ-LINE ( and READ-LINE is a procedure
that ends with a RET ), whereas for simple definitions
corresponding instruction sequences are generated,
for example, ADD reg, # 1 for 1+
and MOV reg, [reg] for @ -- mlg]
Native Code, STC and native code inlining may be combined
with loop unrolling, peephole optimizations, or register
TTC, Token Threaded Code, execution tokens use an indexed jump
table or some other mechanism to represent Forth words with
[Some people distinguish variations of token-threaded code:
the table may contain jump instructions or pointers, and the
thing pointed to may be either an instruction or the address
of a routine. -- mlg]
BTC, Bit Threaded Code, similar to Direct or Indirect Threaded
code but where DOCOLON is represented by a single bit in the
I repeat my assertion that on many processors STC is larger
larger and slower than DTC. Native code is faster and may
be larger or smaller depending on the architecture and
> Threading is another term for subroutine calling .
> I doubt if your indirect threading is "slower and larger"
Um, I said STC was larger and slower than DTC in some cases.
Not that ITC was larger and slower than STC. That will be
very dependent on the architecture.
STC uses CALL/RET and my be larger or smaller than an
address depending on the processor and type of CALL used.
Comparisons are different on 8,12,16,20,32, and 64 bit
machines and depending on the instruction set.
> I have seen hundreds of indirect threaded F's ....
> they are all smaller , not larger as they have not
> the CALL overhead.
ITC does tend to be smaller than STC when the number
of bits for an address is less than the number of bits
for a call instruction and address argument.
When you campare to native code it may be more or less
depending on the architecture. When inlined opcodes
require fewer bits than addresses or when optimization
removes code then native code will be smaller.
The biggest ratio I have seen between the size of Direct
Threaded and Native Code was about 4 to 1. A wider
application of inlining or of loop unrolling may make
native code larger in search of higher speed.
- Jeff Fox UltraTechnology
$Id: index-v.txt,v 1.2 2001/10/31 07:36:54 mlg-r Exp $
generated Wed Jul 23 02:53:42 2003mlg