Re: [Amforth] Simulation of AVR with Amforth in simavr? (And: Unnescessary multiple writes to EEPROM?)

[Enoch <ix...@ho...>]

Dear Matthias,

I understand that Mikael ("FlashForth") represents "the competition" but
his point, in my opinion, cannot be ignored. All those frequently
changing variables from amforth-eprom.inc should not stay just EEPROM
based:

EE_DP:   ; Dictionary Pointer
EE_HERE: ; Memory Allocation
EE_EDP:  ; EEProm Memory Allocation

I intend to fix that in my amforth-shadow git but I prefer that you
would take the lead.

The solution is simple, XT_DP, XT_HERE and XT_EDP should be RAM
variables that are initialized from the EEPROM on cold start. A new
immediate word, let's say "eesy" (EEPROM sync), would do the RAM to EE
sync. To be on the safe side let tools/amforth-shell.py issue this
"eesy" for us automatically before exit...

Sincerely, Enoch.


Enoch <ix...@ho...> writes:

> Mikael Nordman <mik...@pp...>
> writes:
>
>> Hi Wojtek,
>> Just to inform you that FlashForth buffers the DPs and LATEST in ram 
>> during compilation.
>> This lessens the wear on the EEPROM and makes the compilation go faster !
>>
>> BR Mikael
>
> Hello Mikael & All:
>
> I agree, AmForth should follow suit.
> The change seems trivial, a simple rewrite of words/dp.asm, etc.
>
> I like the recent interest in simavr as a standard devel platform.
> Can it be used to benchmark, say, AmForth vs. FlashForth?
>
> Thanks, Enoch.