It's all Bruce! Congratulations, and thanks!

(I really need to give this a spin on FPGA...)

Actually, Bill Muench deserves the bulk of the credit. When there's only 30 or so primitives to port, getting it going happens pretty quickly.

By the way, have you tried the latest 65C816 version? I'm thinking that whatever was going wrong on the hybrid version is going to go wrong on the real 65C816 version. If the issue is still present, I'll have to deal with it sooner or later.

Indeed, thanks to Bill, especially for allowing the code to be worked on.

I'm afraid to say the emulated 65816 code is still doing the wrong thing for me: it merely echoes the input. Here's a zip file with a megabyte of instruction trace (in case it's any use - no obligation!). I haven't yet got a trace of any non-CPU state - will have to call it a night soon but will come back to this.

Cheers
Ed

From a quick look at the trace, it looks like the INPUT routine only changes the lower 8 bits of the accumulator. For ACCEPT to be able to match a line-ending CR the upper 8 bits must be clear. I didn't think to mention that in the documentation, so I've updated the documentation. Adding an AND #$00FF to the end of INPUT should do the trick.

Ah, I should have thought of that, or seen it! Thanks again - that's now completely happy!



What does Bill say about redistributing your version, or making further derivations?

Cheers
Ed

I told him what I had done (versions for the 6502, 65C02, 65C816 and 65org16), what I planned to do (rewrite words like * and SAME? in assembly like EFORTHO.X86), and all I ever asked was if he minded if I put it on the web. He said he'd be pleased if I did.

There have been many versions of eForth available over the years, as you can see here:

http://www.forth.org/eforth.html

If you want/need more specific info about his terms, I'd recommend asking him.

ok, thanks. Ideally - for me - we can get a fairly standard and simple copyright license header.

There are several choices with different characteristics - there's a guide of sorts here.

Cheers
Ed

Could one of you Chrome users point me to the appropriate settings to allow me to avoid this message when I try to access Bruce's site from home? I know that the fault lies in my home machine, because I can access it just fine from Chrome at work. It's just not a good idea ... due to the annoying fact that there's work to do there.

Mike

You could try http://lowkey.comuf.com/
I suspect a routing error, which is even lower-level than a name service error, both of which would be problems with your OS, your router, or your ISP, rather than your browser. Rebooting your router is at least a simple and quick thing to try.

If you
ping lowkey.comuf.com
you should/might find it resolving to 31.170.163.130 and it should be reachable. But I'm not sure how that might help you solve your problem. Traceroute (or tracepath, or tracert if you're on Windows) might help diagnose what's up.
tracert lowkey.comuf.com

Sorry
Ed