Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: PAD and preemptive multi-tasking
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2024 13:17:54 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 8
Message-ID: <87h66yqcjh.fsf@nightsong.com>
References: <2024Dec20.111031@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2024 22:17:55 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1f1ae5bc0973269de04f0b475f2d2d54";
	logging-data="3826265"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+a2xwVT8Qoq6kwhjcO4dnj"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:baNokWStQxXNlaP/Q38fKyiOxXc=
	sha1:XGCKD8KaeFS+VSva/B72u38tkbs=
Bytes: 1380

anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes:
> In any case, the question is how PAD is used by current programs that
> might be run on Gforth.

I thought the standard required PAD to be usable as random scratch
memory.  So I'd expect Gforth to allocate one for each task.  Gforth
systems aren't likely to suffer memory shortages from doing that.  It
would be more of an issue for Polyforth.