Dual-stack (Forth) processors

[Stephen Pelc]

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:25:11 -0500, rickman <spamgoeshere4@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Mops can generate PowerPC code. As for embedded PowerPC I was surprised
that I didn't see a SwiftX or VFX implementation on their websites
although both supported ColdFire.

I believe that is because both companies are reactive rather than
proactive. They port to a new platform when they are paid to do it.
Sorry Rick, but it isn't always true. We certainly port when paid

to do so, but we also do it when we like the CPU. The ARM and
Coldfire VFX ports were done on our own dime. There are several
CPUs we've done cross compilers for that I wish we hadn't wasted
time on. We just don't have the budget to do every CPU on the
market. In retrospect I consider the decision to support ARM
rather than PPC a good one.

They don't speculate on their own dime.
Oh yes we do. The VFX code generator was a speculative venture.

Yes, we do it with commercial (and sometimes cautious) interest,
but MPE at least has a long track record in speculative R&D
ventures, including what eventually became the basis of the
Europay OTA system.

Stephen
--
Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@INVALID.mpeltd.demon.co.uk
MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time
133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691
web: http://www.mpeltd.demon.co.uk - free VFX Forth downloads

 

[Martin Euredjian]

John M. Drake wrote:

Have you consider just doing it the FPGA way? I haven't stopped to
think
about what's required but you can certainly create building blocks in
hardware (say, filters).

I wasn't aware that the "FPGA way" and a Forth processor were mutually
exclusive.

Neither am I.

But, seriously, there are a lot of things that you cannot do with a
sequential processor, Forth or otherwise. Example: 32 tap FIR filter
running at 150MHz, one result per clock. What you can do is have a little
Forth (or whatever) processor within the FPGA that loads coefficients into
that filter. That's what I implied by the "FPGA way": Use the high-speed
capabilities of FPGA's to develop custom processing sub-blocks that a Forth
(or something else) processor can then pull strings on. This in contrast to
insisting that everything be done with a Forth machine just out of
attachment to the language (note that the OP is not suggesting that at all).


--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Martin Euredjian

To send private email:
0_0_0_0_@pacbell.net
where
"0_0_0_0_" = "martineu"

 

[Max]

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 00:12:00 GMT, Martin Euredjian wrote:

When I reply to a top-posted message with a sig -- like yours --
everything below the sig is gone, as here. The _)(*&^%$#@!! news program
snips it all silently.

Really? That's amazing. Why would they do that?

Because it's implicit in the Usenet standards. The signature seperator
is defined as a line consisting of:
<hyphen><hyphen><space><eol>

One of the relevant standards (possibly RFC850, but I can't remember
for sure) states that the sig should always be stripped in replies,
and the better newspeaders do it automatically. Usenet standards
always assume bottom-posting, so this behaviour is convenient.

Maybe you need to try a different reader. I'm using Outlook Express and
directly off the Web when travelling with a browser.

Outlook Express breaks all sorts of standards, and can't be regarded
as a real news reader in consequence (it's barely adequate even as a
mail client). As an example, OE strips all trailing spaces on lines,
so it cannot generate a standard-compliant sig seperator. It also does
quoting incorrectly, by adding a space following the quote character,
and by wrapping quoted lines at the same length as new text (it will
also wrap continuous strings - hence the fragmented URLs in OE posts).

I can't even
begin to illustrate all of OE's misbehaviour, but this paragraph
demonstrates one of it's more fatuous foibles - OE users can't even
read it, since it's assumed to be a script attachment!

--
Max

 

[rickman]

Max wrote:

I can't even
begin to illustrate all of OE's misbehaviour, but this paragraph
demonstrates one of it's more fatuous foibles - OE users can't even
read it, since it's assumed to be a script attachment!

I don't want to continue an OT conversation posted to so many groups,
but can you explain what that means? Why does OE assume the above
paragraph is a script attachment? I don't see anything special about
it. Hmmm... is it the word
begin at the start of a line with two spaces after it?

--

Rick "rickman" Collins

rick.collins@XYarius.com
Ignore the reply address. To email me use the above address with the XY
removed.

Arius - A Signal Processing Solutions Company
Specializing in DSP and FPGA design URL http://www.arius.com
4 King Ave 301-682-7772 Voice
Frederick, MD 21701-3110 301-682-7666 FAX

 

[Max]

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:30:28 GMT, Randy Yates wrote:

Perhaps the problem isn't top- or bottom-posting per se, but that the
quoting method used is inconsistent. If folks are careful to ensure
the "Tom says:" lines are properly maintained and use the same quote
character and indentation style, either posting style is fairly easily-
parsed, in my opinion.

While your point is entirely sensible, it just doesn't work, since the
most common "news client" in use is probably Outlook Express (Outlook
proper can't do NNTP at all), and it simply ignores many Usenet
standards. OE users are prevented from quoting correctly, or even
generating a standard sig separator.

Personally, I'm not too fussed about top-posting per se. What does
irritate is the lazy poster who can't be bothered to edit the quoted
text at all, so you end up with reams of irrelevant chat going back to
the original post. I'm just as likely to ignore such a post
irrespective of whether the new text is at the top or the bottom.

--
Max

 

[Max]

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 11:53:43 -0500, rickman wrote:

I don't want to continue an OT conversation posted to so many groups,

Nor did I, really, since I don't like cross-posting either, but I
don't know what groups the participants in this thread inhabit, so...

but can you explain what that means? Why does OE assume the above
paragraph is a script attachment? I don't see anything special about
it. Hmmm... is it the word
begin at the start of a line with two spaces after it?

Yep - got it in one.

OE will strip off the lines at the end of the post, and claim that
they constitute an attachment named
"to illustrate all of OE's misbehaviour, but this paragraph.dat"
- ROTFLMAO!

There's also a massive security hole there, though I don't think I'll
go into detail. It's only one such flaw amongst a multitude, however.

--
Max

 

[Max]

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 15:29:36 +0000 (UTC), Max wrote:

As an example, OE strips all trailing spaces on lines,
so it cannot generate a standard-compliant sig seperator.

Apparently, that particular bug has been fixed in recent OE versions.
ISTR OE v6 did resolve quite a few of the sillier deficiencies, but
there's still enough left to make life interesting ;o)

--
Max

 

[Ken Hagan]

Max wrote:

OE will strip off the lines at the end of the post, and claim that
they constitute an attachment named
"to illustrate all of OE's misbehaviour, but this paragraph.dat"
- ROTFLMAO!

There's also a massive security hole there, though I don't think I'll
go into detail. It's only one such flaw amongst a multitude, however.

The hole is smaller than you think, since the "attachment" is empty.
Presumably OE didn't find the end of the attachment so just threw
the contents away.

 

[Max]

On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 11:11:47 -0000, Ken Hagan wrote:

There's also a massive security hole there, though I don't think I'll
go into detail. It's only one such flaw amongst a multitude, however.

The hole is smaller than you think, since the "attachment" is empty.
Presumably OE didn't find the end of the attachment so just threw
the contents away.

Yes, but what if it really WAS a valid script? Like to bet that no-one
would open it?

And normal Usenet protections don't apply here. According to all
relevant RFCs, such a message doesn't contain an attachment at all, so
no NNTP server will strip it (I don't count the news server in IIS,
obviously). I don't know of any AV software that intercepts NNTP,
traffic either, though that could of course be done.

OE is simply an incident waiting to happen. It would still be
over-priced junk if it was $100 cheaper ;o)

--
Max