Menu
▾
▴
amforth-devel
|
From: Bernard M. <bme...@gm...> - 2008-07-15 01:03:20
|
Hi All,
I am trying to implement some "finite state machine" code from J. Noble. In
his example code from an older Forth standard, he uses the word TUCK
derived from "under" as ..... : TUCK compile under ;
I cannot find the words tuck or under in amForth core words, does anyone
have the definition for "tuck" at hand?
Also, in the FSM code he defines a PERFORM word as: .... : PERFORM compile
@ compile execute ;
Would the same thing in amForth be: .... : PERFORM defer @ defer execute ;
or do we still use "compile"???? I am a bit
rusty on what "defer" does.
And lastly, the FSM code is:
: FSM: ( width -- ) CREATE , ]
DOES> ( n adr -- )
TUCK @ mystate @ * + CELLS CELL+ +
( adr') PERFORM ;
I notice he enters into compile mode with the "]" word just before the
DOES> word, is that necessary to do with the latest CREATE/DOES code?
Thanks in advance ..
Bernie
|
|
From: Kalus M. <mic...@on...> - 2008-07-15 21:12:42
|
Guten Abend Bernard. Am 15.07.2008 um 03:03 schrieb Bernard Mentink: > .. does anyone > have the definition for "tuck" at hand? : tuck ( w1 w2 – w2 w1 w2 ) \ core-ext “tuck” swap over ; Beispiel aus gforth: 11 22 .s <2> 11 22 ok tuck .s <3> 22 11 22 ok 33 44 .s <5> 22 11 22 33 44 ok swap over .s <6> 22 11 22 44 33 44 ok Tuck ist nützlich wenn es als code definiert ist, weil die Kkombiantion SWAP OVER doch häufiger vorkommt. Ist aber nicht sooo dringend das zu implementieren, es sei denn du hättest wirklich sehr laufzeitkritischen Code hast. Grüße, Michael |
|
From: Bernard M. <bme...@gm...> - 2008-07-15 21:28:04
|
Thanks Michael, I don't understand German but I get the code, I had found the definition to tuck elsewhere, I just wanted to check it was correct. Also I am still having trouble with the old style forth in the definition :*perform compile @ compile execute ; * Is the solution now to use *: perform postpone @ postpone execute; *?? Cheers, Bernie 2008/7/16 Kalus Michael <mic...@on...>: > Guten Abend Bernard. > > Am 15.07.2008 um 03:03 schrieb Bernard Mentink: > > .. does anyone > > have the definition for "tuck" at hand? > > : tuck ( w1 w2 – w2 w1 w2 ) \ core-ext "tuck" > swap over ; > > Beispiel aus gforth: > > 11 22 .s > <2> 11 22 ok > tuck .s > <3> 22 11 22 ok > > 33 44 .s > <5> 22 11 22 33 44 ok > swap over .s > <6> 22 11 22 44 33 44 ok > > Tuck ist nützlich wenn es als code definiert ist, weil die > Kkombiantion SWAP OVER doch häufiger vorkommt. Ist aber nicht sooo > dringend das zu implementieren, es sei denn du hättest wirklich sehr > laufzeitkritischen Code hast. > > Grüße, Michael > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's > challenge > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great > prizes > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > _______________________________________________ > Amforth-devel mailing list > Amf...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amforth-devel > |
|
From: Kalus M. <mic...@on...> - 2008-07-15 21:58:36
|
Hi Bernhard. Am 15.07.2008 um 23:28 schrieb Bernard Mentink: > I don't understand German but I get the code, Oh, did not think of it for a moment, Im sorry. >> Tuck ist nützlich wenn es als code definiert ist, weil die >> Kkombiantion SWAP OVER doch häufiger vorkommt. Ist aber nicht sooo >> dringend das zu implementieren, es sei denn du hättest wirklich sehr >> laufzeitkritischen Code hast. So here it is in English: Tuck i useful if you define it in assember code. It then replaces SWAP OVER so your programm runs faster. Only needed if your program has run time critical code around SWAP OVER phrases. Michael |
|
From: Kalus M. <mic...@on...> - 2008-07-15 22:31:17
|
Hi Bernhard. Am 15.07.2008 um 03:03 schrieb Bernard Mentink: > > : FSM: ( width -- ) CREATE , ] > DOES> ( n adr -- ) > TUCK @ mystate @ * + CELLS CELL+ + > ( adr') PERFORM ; > May be you want to post you quesion on usenet: comp.lang.forth Or you may ask Ulrich Hoffman, he is very familiar with those older forths too. Michael |
|
From: Kalus M. <mic...@on...> - 2008-07-15 22:37:07
|
Bernhard. Am 15.07.2008 um 03:03 schrieb Bernard Mentink: > > Also, in the FSM code he defines a PERFORM word as: .... : PERFORM > compile > @ compile execute ; > Would the same thing in amForth be: .... : PERFORM defer @ defer > execute ; > or do we still use "compile"???? I am a bit > rusty on what "defer" does. > No idea what ist goin on here. I found a definition in former F83 for the 6502 cpu: : PERFORM ( ADDR -- ) @ EXECUTE ; gforth doc says: ...execute performs the semantics represented by the XT (i.e., for XTs produced with ’ the interpretation semantics). So: ' swap execute simply does SWAP To get an execution vector you can store an XT (execution token) into a variable and PERFORM this variable with the phrase @ EXECUTE variable dance ' hiphop dance ! ... perform dance ... ' walz dance ! ... perform dance Does this help? Michael |
|
From: Bernard M. <bme...@gm...> - 2008-07-15 23:15:08
|
Thanks Michael, I got the code working. I used *: perform @ execute ;* , did not need the "compile" word. I also had to tweak the code a bit to take care of atmel 16 bit word addressing, but apart from that it works fine. I will post the code to be included in the library, that is if anyone finds writing state machines useful, I personally use them all the time to make code faster and more readable ...... Cheers, Bernie On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Kalus Michael <mic...@on...> wrote: > Bernhard. > > Am 15.07.2008 um 03:03 schrieb Bernard Mentink: > > > > > Also, in the FSM code he defines a PERFORM word as: .... : PERFORM > > compile > > @ compile execute ; > > Would the same thing in amForth be: .... : PERFORM defer @ defer > > execute ; > > or do we still use "compile"???? I am a bit > > rusty on what "defer" does. > > > > No idea what ist goin on here. > > I found a definition in former F83 for the 6502 cpu: > > : PERFORM ( ADDR -- ) @ EXECUTE ; > > > gforth doc says: > ...execute performs the semantics represented by the > XT (i.e., for XTs produced with ' the interpretation semantics). > > So: ' swap execute simply does SWAP > > To get an execution vector you can store an XT (execution token) into > a variable and PERFORM this variable with the phrase @ EXECUTE > > > > variable dance > > ' hiphop dance ! > ... > perform dance > ... > ' walz dance ! > ... > perform dance > > > Does this help? Michael > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's > challenge > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great > prizes > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > _______________________________________________ > Amforth-devel mailing list > Amf...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amforth-devel > |
|
From: Ulrich H. <uh...@xl...> - 2008-07-16 06:12:49
|
Hi Bernie, Mike, > Is the solution now to use *: perform postpone @ postpone execute; *?? yes In Forth-83 there were two distinct words for user defined compilation: COMPILE for non-immediate words and [COMPILE] for immediate words. However some special Forth systems had immediate words which are non-immediate in typical systems: for example cmForth defines @ as an immediate compiler macro. Thus the use of COMPILE and [COMPILE] was not portable to those systems. POSTPONE tries to hide the immediateness of the compiled word, so POSTPONE @ compiles the correct code whether or not @ is immediate. Interesting enough, if you want to emulate POSTPONE on older systems with COMPILE and [COMPILE] you have to deal with the immediateness of the compiled word in order to hide it... Regards, Ulli Am 15.07.2008 um 23:28 schrieb Bernard Mentink: > Thanks Michael, > > I don't understand German but I get the code, I had found the > definition to > tuck elsewhere, I just wanted to check it was correct. > > Also I am still having trouble with the old style forth in the > definition :*perform compile @ compile execute ; > * > Is the solution now to use *: perform postpone @ postpone execute; *?? > > Cheers, > Bernie > > 2008/7/16 Kalus Michael <mic...@on...>: > >> Guten Abend Bernard. >> >> Am 15.07.2008 um 03:03 schrieb Bernard Mentink: >>> .. does anyone >>> have the definition for "tuck" at hand? >> >> : tuck ( w1 w2 – w2 w1 w2 ) \ core-ext "tuck" >> swap over ; >> >> Beispiel aus gforth: >> >> 11 22 .s >> <2> 11 22 ok >> tuck .s >> <3> 22 11 22 ok >> >> 33 44 .s >> <5> 22 11 22 33 44 ok >> swap over .s >> <6> 22 11 22 44 33 44 ok >> >> Tuck ist nützlich wenn es als code definiert ist, weil die >> Kkombiantion SWAP OVER doch häufiger vorkommt. Ist aber nicht sooo >> dringend das zu implementieren, es sei denn du hättest wirklich sehr >> laufzeitkritischen Code hast. >> >> Grüße, Michael >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's >> challenge >> Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win >> great >> prizes >> Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in >> the world >> http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ >> _______________________________________________ >> Amforth-devel mailing list >> Amf...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amforth-devel >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's > challenge > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win > great prizes > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in > the world > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > _______________________________________________ > Amforth-devel mailing list > Amf...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amforth-devel |
|
From: Kalus M. <mic...@on...> - 2008-07-16 08:37:54
|
Hi Ulli. Am 16.07.2008 um 08:12 schrieb Ulrich Hoffmann: >> Is the solution now to use *: perform postpone @ postpone execute; >> *?? > yes Hm, what makes the differencce in using : perform postpone @ postpone execute ; ( A ) instead of : perform @ execute ; ( B ) then? Speed? Looks like Version A acts like an makro compiling @ and EXECUTE into your definition, so that at runtime there will be less overhead because we skip one NEXT level this way? If speed does not matter that much version B will do the same thing? Michael |
|
From: Ulrich H. <uh...@xl...> - 2008-07-16 09:23:03
|
Hi Mike,
> Hm, what makes the differencce in using
> : perform postpone @ postpone execute ; ( A )
> instead of
> : perform @ execute ; ( B )
> then? Speed?
it has to be either
: perform ( compiling: -- ) ( interpreting: xt -- )
postpone @ postpone execute ;
immediate
or just
: perform ( xt -- ) @ execute ;
The latter is the typical definition.
The first definition compiles code so in principle
could be removed from the final program. This however
is seldomly done as only few Forth systems support
temporary definitions.
Speedwise the first version might be slightly faster as
less nesting is done. However the effect is probably
marginal and not worth the effort....
I personally would define PERFOM only for
porting code. I believe
@ EXECUTE
makes a fine phrase to be writen in source.
If I build data/control structures it will be hidden in
that definition anyway, like:
: Case: ( -- ) Create Does> ( i*x -- j*x ) cells + @ execute ;
Case: choice ' dup , ' swap , ' drop ,
10 0 choice ( dup )
20 1 choise ( swap )
2 choice ( drop ) 2 choice ( drop ) 2 choice ( drop )
F83 has PERFORM implemented in code which might
have the speed advantage.... Benchmarking required.
Regards,
Ulli
Am 16.07.2008 um 10:37 schrieb Kalus Michael:
> Hi Ulli.
>
> Am 16.07.2008 um 08:12 schrieb Ulrich Hoffmann:
>>> Is the solution now to use *: perform postpone @ postpone execute;
>>> *??
>> yes
>
> Hm, what makes the differencce in using
> : perform postpone @ postpone execute ; ( A )
> instead of
> : perform @ execute ; ( B )
> then? Speed?
>
> Looks like Version A acts like an makro compiling @ and EXECUTE into
> your definition, so that at runtime there will be less overhead
> because we skip one NEXT level this way? If speed does not matter
> that much version B will do the same thing?
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's
> challenge
> Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win
> great prizes
> Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in
> the world
> http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
> _______________________________________________
> Amforth-devel mailing list
> Amf...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amforth-devel
|
|
From: Kalus M. <mic...@on...> - 2008-07-16 17:16:18
|
Hi Bernard.
Am 15.07.2008 um 03:03 schrieb Bernard Mentink:
> And lastly, the FSM code is:
>
> : FSM: ( width -- ) CREATE , ]
> DOES> ( n adr -- )
> TUCK @ mystate @ * + CELLS CELL+ +
> ( adr') PERFORM ;
>
> I notice he enters into compile mode with the "]" word just before
> the
> DOES> word, is that necessary to do with the latest CREATE/DOES code?
In the meantime I studied Nobles Code (1). Hope I got it right what
he is doing there.
This is what the ] does:
He ceates a defining word called FSM: and during compiletime of FSM:
the ] is compiled into the definition. At runtime of FSM: the ] is
executed. Now this starts compilation of all the words following the
word defined by the defining word until the closing ; enters
execution again.
In Nobles example "3.2. A Better FSM" FSM: defines <Fixed.Pt#> and
thereafter compiles the list of execution tokens:
4 WIDE FSM: <Fixed.Pt#> ( action# -- )
\ other num - . \ state
DROP (00) (00) (02) \ 0
DROP (00) DROP (02) \ 1
DROP (02) DROP DROP ; \ 2
If you do not want to use that ]-trick, because it makes your program
code more mysterious, you archive the same result this way:
4 WIDE FSM: <Fixed.Pt#> ( action# -- )
\ other num - . \ state
' DROP , ' (00) , ' (00) , ' (02) , \ 0
' DROP , ' (00) , ' DROP , ' (02) , \ 1
' DROP , ' (02) , ' DROP , ' DROP , \ 2
This way it is more obvious what comes into the array.
So the use of ] has nothing to do with the CREATE/DOES Part of
creating a new defining word. ok?
Michael
(1) Finite State Machines in Forth; J. V. Noble
http://dec.bournemouth.ac.uk/forth/jfar/index.html
|
|
From: Bernard M. <bme...@gm...> - 2008-07-16 21:32:27
|
Hi Michael, I implemented the "Elegant FSM" version of Julien's code Section 3.3 i.e: The FSM is then defined as 4 WIDE FSM: \ input: | other? | num? | minus? | dp? | \ state: --------------------------------------------- ( 0 ) DROP >0 EMIT >1 EMIT >1 EMIT >2 ( 1 ) DROP >1 EMIT >1 DROP >1 EMIT >2 ( 2 ) DROP >2 EMIT >2 DROP >2 DROP >2 ; That seems to me the most readable and flexible of all his examples. I have given Mathias the code for including in the Lib. Cheers, Bernard. On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 5:16 AM, Kalus Michael <mic...@on...> wrote: > Hi Bernard. > > > Am 15.07.2008 um 03:03 schrieb Bernard Mentink: > > > And lastly, the FSM code is: > > > > : FSM: ( width -- ) CREATE , ] > > DOES> ( n adr -- ) > > TUCK @ mystate @ * + CELLS CELL+ + > > ( adr') PERFORM ; > > > > I notice he enters into compile mode with the "]" word just before > > the > > DOES> word, is that necessary to do with the latest CREATE/DOES code? > > In the meantime I studied Nobles Code (1). Hope I got it right what > he is doing there. > > > This is what the ] does: > > He ceates a defining word called FSM: and during compiletime of FSM: > the ] is compiled into the definition. At runtime of FSM: the ] is > executed. Now this starts compilation of all the words following the > word defined by the defining word until the closing ; enters > execution again. > > > In Nobles example "3.2. A Better FSM" FSM: defines <Fixed.Pt#> and > thereafter compiles the list of execution tokens: > > 4 WIDE FSM: <Fixed.Pt#> ( action# -- ) > \ other num - . \ state > DROP (00) (00) (02) \ 0 > DROP (00) DROP (02) \ 1 > DROP (02) DROP DROP ; \ 2 > > > If you do not want to use that ]-trick, because it makes your program > code more mysterious, you archive the same result this way: > > 4 WIDE FSM: <Fixed.Pt#> ( action# -- ) > \ other num - . \ state > ' DROP , ' (00) , ' (00) , ' (02) , \ 0 > ' DROP , ' (00) , ' DROP , ' (02) , \ 1 > ' DROP , ' (02) , ' DROP , ' DROP , \ 2 > > This way it is more obvious what comes into the array. > > > So the use of ] has nothing to do with the CREATE/DOES Part of > creating a new defining word. ok? > > Michael > > > (1) Finite State Machines in Forth; J. V. Noble > http://dec.bournemouth.ac.uk/forth/jfar/index.html > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's > challenge > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great > prizes > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > _______________________________________________ > Amforth-devel mailing list > Amf...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amforth-devel > |
|
From: Kalus M. <mic...@on...> - 2008-07-16 22:15:52
|
Hi Bernard. Am 16.07.2008 um 23:32 schrieb Bernard Mentink: > I implemented the "Elegant FSM" version of Julien's code Section > 3.3 i.e: > > The FSM is then defined as > > 4 WIDE FSM: > \ input: | other? | num? | minus? | dp? | > \ state: --------------------------------------------- > ( 0 ) DROP >0 EMIT >1 EMIT >1 EMIT >2 > ( 1 ) DROP >1 EMIT >1 DROP >1 EMIT >2 > ( 2 ) DROP >2 EMIT >2 DROP >2 DROP >2 ; > > > That seems to me the most readable and flexible of all his examples. > I have given Mathias the code for including in the Lib. Well, so you finaly got used to the ]-trick of FSM: I agree, this way to set up the array realy looks good. Something like ' drop , ' >0 , .. is uglier. :-) Michael |
|
From: Bernard M. <bme...@gm...> - 2008-07-17 01:26:42
|
Hi Michael, Yes, thanks for the explaination on how the "]" word was working in this code, it all makes sense now .... I have to get my head around what is happening at compile time and run time with the create/does> words .... By the way everyone, on writing this code and laying out some large FSM tables to use in anger ... I have come across what I think is a bug. When the lines get longer than 80 characters the interpreter does not accept input and misses some of my table .... with modern editors having a much wider column width this is a severe limitation in writing descriptive FSM's as I like to have the "action" word and the "state" word fairly discriptive ..., with the width only 80 wide I am limited to names only 3/4 characters or so with 5 inputs wide for example .. I don't know if the limitation is in the pearl script for sending to the device, or in the actual interpreter .... must have a good look at both. Cheers, Bernard On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:15 AM, Kalus Michael <mic...@on...> wrote: > Hi Bernard. > > > Am 16.07.2008 um 23:32 schrieb Bernard Mentink: > > > I implemented the "Elegant FSM" version of Julien's code Section > > 3.3 i.e: > > > > The FSM is then defined as > > > > 4 WIDE FSM: > > \ input: | other? | num? | minus? | dp? | > > \ state: --------------------------------------------- > > ( 0 ) DROP >0 EMIT >1 EMIT >1 EMIT >2 > > ( 1 ) DROP >1 EMIT >1 DROP >1 EMIT >2 > > ( 2 ) DROP >2 EMIT >2 DROP >2 DROP >2 ; > > > > > > That seems to me the most readable and flexible of all his examples. > > I have given Mathias the code for including in the Lib. > > Well, so you finaly got used to the ]-trick of FSM: > > I agree, this way to set up the array realy looks good. > > Something like ' drop , ' >0 , .. is uglier. > > :-) > Michael > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's > challenge > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great > prizes > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > _______________________________________________ > Amforth-devel mailing list > Amf...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amforth-devel > |
|
From: Matthias T. <mt...@we...> - 2008-07-17 14:42:57
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, Bernard Mentink wrote: > I don't know if the limitation is in the pearl script for sending to the > device, or in the actual interpreter .... must have a good look at both. Much simpler: It is configurable paramter at build-time. Just edit your application master file and change the value of TIBSIZE to something different (bigger). Matthias -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFIf1pM9bEHdGEMFjMRAhKpAJ4hOBJ4oRO4Cy0M55nCJ3exuXhxywCgjVCb 1BGg6rvqEjjew+blUieo3HM= =rdaJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
From: Matthias T. <mt...@we...> - 2008-07-24 18:35:53
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi > Bernard Mentink wrote: > >> I don't know if the limitation is in the pearl script for sending to the >> device, or in the actual interpreter .... must have a good look at both. > > Much simpler: It is configurable paramter at build-time. Just edit your > application master file and change the value of TIBSIZE to something > different (bigger). A little amendment: changing the value most probably confuses the system. in words/refill.asm the default value of 80 is hardcoded (3rd code line). Change the 80 to TIBSIZE and the configuration settings will be honored. It is fixed in the repository, but the trunk code has another change with TIB and SOURCE that is not yet finished (it works but is ugly and does not all that's intended). Matthias -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFIiMuK9bEHdGEMFjMRAg9jAKDKtflVexyAU+RBLWCCY/FKD6lWPQCgzheq fC/lYRwOJ9PkoT6+kuwM1ic= =Oo+/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
From: Bernard M. <bme...@gm...> - 2008-07-24 22:30:27
|
thanks for that, Bernie On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 6:35 AM, Matthias Trute <mt...@we...> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi > > > Bernard Mentink wrote: > > > >> I don't know if the limitation is in the pearl script for sending to > the > >> device, or in the actual interpreter .... must have a good look at both. > > > > Much simpler: It is configurable paramter at build-time. Just edit your > > application master file and change the value of TIBSIZE to something > > different (bigger). > > A little amendment: changing the value most probably confuses the > system. in words/refill.asm the default value of 80 is hardcoded (3rd > code line). Change the 80 to TIBSIZE and the configuration settings > will be honored. It is fixed in the repository, but the trunk code > has another change with TIB and SOURCE that is not yet finished (it > works but is ugly and does not all that's intended). > > Matthias > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQFIiMuK9bEHdGEMFjMRAg9jAKDKtflVexyAU+RBLWCCY/FKD6lWPQCgzheq > fC/lYRwOJ9PkoT6+kuwM1ic= > =Oo+/ > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's > challenge > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great > prizes > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > _______________________________________________ > Amforth-devel mailing list > Amf...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amforth-devel > |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X