Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!usenet.network!news.neodome.net!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mhx@iae.nl (mhx)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Parsing =?UTF-8?B?dGltZXN0YW1wcz8=?=
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2025 05:25:21 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <7cd2f6772129158fa54e1324e95b88cd@www.novabbs.com>
References: <1f433fabcb4d053d16cbc098dedc6c370608ac01@i2pn2.org> <954cf34891bed0677fd79af0b676c50613dc1443@i2pn2.org> <2025Jul13.110141@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <2d6811168025a74b3ff51a78efb75947d36a0146@i2pn2.org> <2025Jul14.080413@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <063d4a116fb394a776b1e9313f9903cf@www.novabbs.com> <2025Jul14.095004@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <a449857495e02b4d35627f9f31d37fd8@www.novabbs.com> <2025Jul16.132504@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <9264ab8440a109bea313a7347f13fcc5@www.novabbs.com> <2025Jul17.144145@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1121163"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="J+nubxJRM7ncpF4l6KLO+OONWmFAYJHVJegfwQXJ8vc";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Posting-User: 4e0dc1fdad1ead10b39e7eb5db19bf73d73e3ab3
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$qIzGssrkkwgrA2pUUsGgrOOT37fMLCvPsVShPbHnXrivX6SqYzGny

On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 12:41:45 +0000, Anton Ertl wrote:

> mhx@iae.nl (mhx) writes:
>>Well, that is strange ...
[..]
> The output should be the approximate number of seconds.  Here's what I
> get from the cycle:u numbers for iForth 5.1-mini given in the earlier
> postings:
>
> \ ------------ input ---------- | output
>  6_482_017_334 scale 7 5 3 f.rdp 1.07534 ok
>  6_452_716_125 scale 7 5 3 f.rdp 1.07048 ok
>  2_949_273_264 scale 7 5 3 f.rdp 0.48927 ok
> 14_634_786_781 scale 7 5 3 f.rdp 2.42785 ok
>
> The resulting numbers are not very different from those you show.  My
> measurements include iForth's startup overhead, which may be one
> explanation why they are a little higher.

You are right, of course. I was confused by the original posting's
second table (which showed #instructions but was labeled #cycles).

 ( For the record, I used #7963 iterations of the code to get
   approximately 1 second runtime for the naive implementation. )

-marcel

--