Measured, compiling a DO loop left one return entry spare under
INTERPRET and a defining word called from inside another word
overflowed the nine-entry return stack (D-2); the prompt loop will take
one more.
C@ and C! shift without a loop. The code generator shifts each opcode
into the word being built, so nothing is placed by a counted shift, and
the address masks come from a table. The dictionary search, the
in-liner, the end of a loop and the making of a data word are each one
word reached by a jump.
Every kind of line now leaves at least three return entries spare while
it compiles; a word run from the interpreter has six; and CREATE ...
DOES> works from the prompt, from a word, and from a word that calls
that.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
WORD, the dictionary words and the code generator run underneath
whatever the user has on the stacks, which are ten and nine deep (D-2).
Measured, they used five to seven data cells of their own, leaving a
line about three. Each now keeps what it works on in its file's
scratch cells and has at most three cells on the data stack; , calls
nothing; and the longest chains of calls are shorter.
The public words of core.v4, input.v4 and dict.v4 get dictionary
headers. NUMBER is split so the interpreter can have a flag instead of
NODE-ERROR. The host-node tests share one memory map, host_map.h.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The third layer of the compiler capsule, v4/capsule/codegen.v4: opcodes,
literals and branches packed into instruction words at HERE, by the
rules of sections 1.2 and 2. (OP,) (LIT,) (LABEL) (BRANCH,) (JUMP,)
(CALL,) (BRANCH>) (RESOLVE) (FLUSH) (CG-RESET).
Tested by laying the same programmes down with the text assembler on
one node and with the code generator, running, on another, and
comparing memory word for word: every opcode, literals and branches in
every slot position, and 600 random programmes. What it lays down is
then run.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
