Re: [Amforth-devel] benchmarks ;=)

[Matthias T. <mt...@we...>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Joh,

joe...@t-... schrieb:

> what is your proposal to generate a (1/100us) clock (for e.g. the
> output of a bit pattern ) in amforth? (as you wrote, the timer int.
> isn't usable for such speed)

I only wrote that the timer interrupt may cause strange effects, since I
had/have problems with a 72KHz timer on an atmega8. But I did not re-do
these tests for several month by now due to some hardware problems.
Maybe the problem is solved en-passant...

And as Hans wrote, I doubt, that amforth will _ever_ reach a clock cycle
of 10ns (==100 MHz). You should consider the *very* new atmegas
(paperware) with high-resolution timers.

> What speed can I expect when I use the word pause? Is there a
> guarantee how often the word is called per ms?

How could this be done? The inner interpreter (NEXT) is called
every few cpu cycles: an EXIT needs no (additional) time, an
division may need several hundreds of cycles. An EMIT/KEY
may need _very_ long time. amforth is not designed to generate
a time-slice based hard real-time system for sub-millisecond
requirement.

> Because the pulses
> should come in a certain time distance.

You can use the timer/counter of the atmegas without genereating an
interrupt. That gives the pulses very accurate and basically without
amforth.

Bye
Matthias

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGETCxLo3irIddFw4RAlU8AJ9Mzo82Cf1K97B6JE5PLxwihkn1OACcDI7P
9SUI+0GyCiSuu7QFO0numgE=
=gAG3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----