 | | Re: Something else is needed, I think... —Mark Tarrabain
|
| | | (...) Thank you. Kekoa. I was starting to think I was completely alone in my attitudes. Just a couple of comments on what I think a new byte code should do or be 1) It should resemble machine language. The commands in the bytecode should be (...) (25 years ago, 3-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Something else is needed, I think... —John A. Tamplin
|
| | | | (...) Basically what you are talking about at this level is an interpreted machine language. The only benefit you get from interpreting it rather than running directly on the hardware is that you can catch errors. However, if the bytecodes are (...) (25 years ago, 3-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Something else is needed, I think... —Mark Tarrabain
|
| | | | | (...) Yes. (...) Wrong. Because we could design the instruction set from scratch ourselves, a small set of instructions could be included in the entire instruction set which do things require a great deal of regular machine instructions to do. (...) (25 years ago, 3-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Something else is needed, I think... —John A. Tamplin
|
| | | | | | (...) Well, having a bytecode for turning on a motor seems little benefit compared to calling a library function to do it. From the user's point of view, the effort and the result are similar. (...) Actually, you need to have a call stack and a (...) (25 years ago, 3-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Something else is needed, I think... —Kekoa Proudfoot
|
| | | | | | (...) Sorry to step in here. But there is no difference (as I see it) between having a system library function that runs the motors and having a byte code that runs the motors. It's all a matter of encoding. If I say: set_motor_speed(MOTOR1, 20); (...) (25 years ago, 3-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Something else is needed, I think... —John A. Tamplin
|
| | | | | | (...) That was my point, that it was not a benefit for having an interpreted "machine language" over using native machine language. The only benefits are portability and error checking, and the error checking is problematic when you get to that low (...) (25 years ago, 3-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Something else is needed, I think... —Kekoa Proudfoot
|
| | | | (...) Q: How large are the compiled FP emulation routines for the RCX? -Kekoa (25 years ago, 3-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Something else is needed, I think... —John A. Tamplin
|
| | | | (...) Total .text section is 5832 bytes, .rodata is 4 bytes, and .bss is 8 bytes. This is for all for all of the FP emulation routines, only those actually used will be linked in. This is only the helper routines, not anything from the math library. (...) (25 years ago, 3-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Something else is needed, I think... —Kekoa Proudfoot
|
| | | | (...) This is good to know, I now know that any byte code interpreter that uses floating point will have to devote on the order of (at least) 6K to floating point if it wants to support floating point. Considering that any interpreter that uses the (...) (25 years ago, 3-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
