How you'd do such in Forth depends on the threading method. You have Indirect threaded, direct threaded and call threaded. As you move to the right, they are faster and easier to add optimization but harder to deal with some of the higher level operations like Create Does> ( older Forth would be <Builds Does> ). Dwight
________________________________ From: cctalk <cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org> on behalf of Van Snyder via cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2021 11:42 AM To: cctalk@classiccmp.org <cctalk@classiccmp.org> Subject: Re: On compiling. (Was a way off topic subject) On Wed, 2021-06-23 at 13:36 -0400, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: > Typical FORTH implementations are neat in that respect, since they > use a threaded code encoding that allows for fast and efficient > switching between threaded code (subroutine calls) and straight > machine code. I have a vague recollection of a story about a FORTH processor that put the addresses of the functions to be executed on the return-address stack (68000?) and then executed a RETURN instruction.
