[retroforth] Re: Further thoughts on blocks
- From: "Helmar Wodtke" <helmwo@xxxxxx>
- To: retroforth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:41:14 +0100
Hi Ron,
please note
http://retroforth.org/board/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=138
This bytecode can be used to speed up startup tasks of a FORTH system as you
can see on HelFORTH. It also works as a kind of obfuscation if you need that -
it works better than gzip will do in a lot of situations. Especially if you
strip the comments. Best of all: you still can compress the bytecode (you'll
win approx. 10..20%)
Bis dann,
Helmar
helmwo@xxxxxx
> On Sun, January 16, 2005 11:37, Ron Aaron said:
> I had written:
>
> > 4k real blocks; first 2000 characters (25x80) code, next 2000 characters
> > 'shadow', final 96 bytes of administrative information (dirty status, time
> > of
> > update, whatever). The downside is that 2000 bytes of shadow might be
> > excessive; and it is impossible to easily jettison for a 'turnkey'
> > solution.
>
> This could be made much more sophisticated. The file containing the blocks
> could say whether or not there are shadow blocks. This would enable a
> 'turnkey' without shadows, thereby halving the blockfile size.
>
> Further, the file containing the blocks could be compressed; as with gzip or
> similar utilities. A set of words >gz gz> (or something) would handle
> compressing and decompressing. So one might have a turnkey 'blockfile' which
> actually is compressed; further obfuscating the code for the casual onlooker.
> I've been toying with this idea for the included retroforth.f (reva.f).
>
>
> --
> My GPG public key is at http://ronware.org/
> fingerprint: 8130 734C 69A3 6542 0853 CB42 3ECF 9259 AD29 415D
>
>
>
>
-- Binary/unsupported file stripped by Ecartis --
-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
-- File: smime.p7s
-- Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Other related posts:
