Re: [Flashforth-devel] For-next loops - the New Design

[om1zz <om...@vo...>]

Do you insist on a single asm instruction for the entire for-next loop implementation?
Do-loop is min 30 instructions in FF.

I think that with N vs. N+1 idea when handling for (in any form) you break the consistency of for-loop implementation understanding.

I would easily spend another 1-2 asm instructions and do it consistent. Speed plays no role here.
When somebody wants to bitbang a pin it could be done in asm.

N for ..
N ?for ..

both will do N loops through the body. The only diff is the ?for skips zero. That is very consistent.

0 for 

will do M loops where M=2^16 in this case. That is also consistent as you work with 16bit assembler.

I am suggesting that as a standard for the for-loop design for any architecture on my github.

Igor.




______________________________________________________________
> Od: Mikael Nordman <mik...@fl...>
> Komu: <fla...@li...>
> Datum: 27.05.2015 17:59
> Předmět: Re: [Flashforth-devel] For-next loops - the New Design
>
>Yes, Yes,
>I understand what you want.
>But you dont seem to understand that it cannot be done
>in a simple for..next loop that has only one decrement and branch 
>instruction, and that has an index that counts down to zero.
>
>In order the get the full 16 bit loop count you have to give as input 
>the N+1 count.
>
>But if you have some idea how to implement it in PIC assembly code,
>please write it out.
>
>BR Mike
>
>On 27.05.2015 10:32, om1zz wrote:
>> 0 _for 65535 65534 ..
>> .. 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
>> 65536 ok<#,ram>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>_______________________________________________
>Flashforth-devel mailing list
>Fla...@li...
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flashforth-devel
>