> pop 1 st and 2nd value out of local stack and swap them
You don't need to pop at all for swap. The stack isn't actually changing size and can be modified in place. You also should only have one pop for 'add', etc. A lot of people don't seem to realise this.
Also, this article may be of interest:
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/ericlippert/2011/11/28/why-...
TL;DR - a stack machine is conceptually simpler than a register machine, and it doesn't matter if it's slower since you are JIT'ing it anyway.
Pike and Winterbottom (http://www.vitanuova.com/inferno/papers/hotchips.html) used register-based VM for Plan9/Inferno because it's much faster and easier to write a high-quality jit from register-based VM to register-based CPU (and all of them are register based) than from byte-code VM to register-based CPU.
This is probably the same reason Android chose register-based VM design for their Java-based platform.
Jitting is not free - an increase in jit complexity is paid by lower performance of the code being jitted. Java's HotSpot does wonders but it takes much latency and high memory use to get the really high-quality results.
It makes sense to do as much work as possible where you have time and CPU cycles to spare (during compilation to VM instruction set) and not on the device when every millisecond and every byte matters.
Lower complexity of stack-based VM is a moot point - when you're jitting, you're doing the hard stuff anyway.
The argument that does make sense to me is, if you want a somewhat faster interpreter at some expense in code size, then a register VM wins. (Perhaps by not as much as commonly thought, because of some optimizations like stack caching and superinstructions: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/vmgen/ But it does seem to win still.) This has the disadvantage of having to having to implement spilling or some other such complication in the frontend when the number of virtual registers needed exceeds 256 or whatever.
What did you think of the last part of Erik Lipperts post?
The code is much smaller and much easier to understand. A stack machine is a very simple way to describe a complex computation; by being able to write code for such a simple machine, it lowers the cost of making a compiler. And not only is it easier to write compilers and jitters that target simple stack machines, it is easier to write other code analysis tools as well. The IL verifier, for example, can quickly determine when there is a code path through a method that, say, misaligns the stack, or passes the wrong types of arguments to a method.
https://github.com/Conceptual-Inertia/Conceptum/blob/master/...
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13155259 for an example of what I mean.
It totally matters. See [1] for previous work on this topic. You need to perform expensive data flow optimisations to generate information the stack format doesn't need to encode, but that a register format does need. Better to do this analysis ahead of time in the compiler than at runtime.
[1] https://www.usenix.org/events/vee05/full_papers/p153-yunhe.p...
I am curious as to where you heard this. Modifying the stack in place seems like an implementation detail. I mean even if swap wasn't a primitive (which again seems really far fetched), you are still going to have to modify part of the stack in place eventually. It's just in the naiive way you decrement the stack pointer twice then increment it twice, while in the way I outline you don't bother since the length of the stack is the same after the operation is completed.
Probably easier to write less and pseudo code more - I am assuming a downward growing stack here
# First approach
temp_a = pop(stack)
temp_b = pop(stack)
push(stack, temp_a)
push(stack, temp_b)
# second approach
temp_a = stack[0]
stack[0] = stack[1]
stack[1] = temp_aYour skepticism is justified: https://github.com/frjalex/Conceptum/blob/master/src/main.c#...
(note that this doesn't implement a swap by any means)
Something like "reg1 = reg2 + 125" is a single instruction in almost every register ABI, while at they very, very least, a stack machine would need two instructions: "push 125, add". If reg1 isn't immediately accessible as the stack head, and reg2 isn't consumed as the head, then you also need load/store/swap/roll/etc stuff wrapping the addition.
That's up to 6 (or even more) stack instructions to perform what a register machine can do in 1.
Also, when talking about interpreters, there is a not-insignificant overhead of fetching and dispatching the next instruction. That overhead is continually compounded when you need multiple instructions to perform what you could do in a single operation otherwise. The simpler the instructions are, the higher percentage of time is "wasted" performing instruction dispatch instead of carrying out core instruction processing. This can be parallelized in hardware instruction dispatch, but is pretty firmly stuck being serial in software interpreters.
Stack machines have very concise source code representations, and their individual instructions are simple and fast. But they can be very bloated in terms of the number of native instructions executed to carry out an overall program's work.
Similarly, there's no reason why register-based VMs wouldn't have push/pop instructions.
Is this the graph coloring register allocation optimization problem?
The stack based virtual machine represents instructions as two field structs that are essentially predecoded (and larger in memory) while the register VM uses what boils down to array of words which are then presumably decoded at run time (the paper even contains some kind of argument why the code is represented as array of single-field structs, but completely neglects to mention what would happen if the structs contained some kind of pre-decoded instructions).
The function call mechanism of their stack based VM seems to be essentially modeled after how forth works, which is not how typical stack based VM used in implementation of languages that do not directly expose the VM semantics works. Typical stack based VM (eg. Smalltalk, JVM, CPython...) allocates new argument stack for each function invocation (often using alloca() or such, ie. on native control stack) and does not directly use the VM argument stack to pass parameters and results between functions.
However I'd also point out the register-based VMs was far more difficult to debug, plus the compiler was much more long-winded to account for register allocation. Plus by the time you add on function dispatch overhead and real-world usage patterns, the gap where the register machine is technically better (i.e. besides just doing fibonacci) narrows somewhat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_machine#Performance_disa...
Of course the advantages such as easy code generation and high code density make stack machines a good intermediate compilation target, which then gets compiled to a register machine for actual execution.
Are you referring to a specific language here or are you saying all register machine always compile to stack machines first?
Can you elaborate why is that? What would those advantages be in practical terms?
It concluded that register was faster than stack based but stack based had better code density. The reason seemed to be due to the branch prediction cost per instruction. Fewer but more more powerful instructions reduced the number of times the instruction decode operation occurred.
The article has detailed discussions about the topic.
> generally sucks at the hardware level because most CPUs are register-based
Whoa, hold on there folks. This is not a CPU register VM. It's a 'register-based VM' and it isn't even that.
iconst 1 vs set t3, t1
iconst 2 set t4, t2
iadd add t3, t4, t5
Actually, calling this a register-based VM is just wrong. It's lazy thinking but really it's just wrong. The value of t1 will be in memory.
Yes, it's standard terminology which easily lets people misunderstand what's happening under the hood, as in the above quoted case. The article doesn't even say virtual registers which would have helped. It could. It should. It doesn't.
BTW, a good interpreter will cache the top of stack in a CPU register.
I imagine in the real world, they use something like
union instruction_packet {
int64 value;
int8[8] instructions;
}
Instruction decoding for the entire JVM instruction set save tableswitch and lookupswitch amounted to about 50 lines of code, not counting the enum listing every opcode.
Does it the VM stack as well instead of the native stack?
I might be wrong.
In any case I'm very interested to learn about what register-based Forth VMs are out there!
Most of the opcodes have zero or one operands, usually a single byte (or two bytes with a prefix) that's an index into the local variable array or the constant pool. There's several ways to load constants: the integer constants -1 through 5, long constants 0 and 1, float and double 0, 1, and 2 all have 0-operand opcodes (e.g., iconst_0); there's an opcode to load a 1-byte immediate, another to load a two-byte immediate, and an opcode to load a constant in the constant pool (which can be a string, a Class<?> reference, an integer, long, double, or float).
It should be noted that the JVM specifies a fixed big-endian format in its bytecode, and as a result, even the two-byte immediates are specified in the manual as two operands of a single byte each.
Constants that fit in a byte don't have this problem and can be easily placed in the instruction stream using dedicated byte constant instructions, sometimes including dedicated single-byte instructions for common constants like zero, one, etc.
Do you have a resources regarding these? I would love to learn more about this.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threaded_code
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Threaded-Interpretive-Languages-Desig...
There are 8 parts to the series, you can look at all of them and other Forth writings by the author on his website: http://www.bradrodriguez.com/papers/
For anyone else interested I found this book which is about hardware-based stack machine sand Forth.
To quote the book:
"While some of the material is obviously dated and new work has been done in this area, I believe that the book remains the principal reference work on Forth-style stack computers. "
https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/stack_computers/index.htm...
It is also available on Amazon for a dollar.
The author's page:
Either you have a way to address an offset into the stack, or you don't. If you do, the stack is conceptually equivalent to a register file where you can optionally swap out the entire content in one go (by changing the stack pointer).
If you don't, then registers will in most designs offer you a strict superset of operations: I've yet to see any register-based machines where you can't load things into registers, do the operation and push them back on the stack. In fact, on most machines that are not purist RISC designs, you will tend to be able to do many/most operations with one of the operands in memory.
That superset comes at a complexity cost in some areas, sure, but being able to address more different data items without having to manipulate the stack also turns out to be very handy. If it wasn't, we'd just stick to mostly manipulating the stack even in register-based designs.
EDIT: In fact, you'll often see "naive" first code generators for register-based machines heavily rely on stack manipulation for expression evaluation because it massively reduces the need for register allocation complexity.
In CLR, for example, local variables are referenced by index on the execution stack, but you cannot dynamically push new variables onto it - you have to predeclare the locals at the beginning of your execution frame, and the only way to push a new execution frame is by calling another function. On the other hand, opcodes like ADD operate on the computation stack, which is an abstraction completely separate from, and not affected by, the execution stack (every execution frame has its own independent computation stack; there's no way to peek across the boundary).
So in reality it's a bit more complicated - those locals are also kinda like named (or indexed) registers (at least until you take their address). Then the stack adds more temp registers on top of that. In this model, you could always take any register-based code, and translate it to stack-based with a very blunt transform, where something like "ADD x, y, z" becomes "LOAD x; LOAD y; ADD; STORE z". But in addition to that, you also have the flexibility of doing a bunch of operations directly on the temp stack, without intervening stores and loads, that are unavoidable in the register representation. So I would argue that it's the stack representation that is a superset of register one, not the other way around.
Which one to choose depends on how it is all used. For .NET, multi-language targeting was seen as an important design goal, and so making the bytecode easier to target was prioritized, with all the complexity relegated to JIT.
Long-term, I think it was a right solution in general, because most platforms seem to be moving from JIT to AOT; and with AOT, having the complexity in the bytecode-to-native compiler still has the upside of DRY, and slower compile times stop being a downside.
I have not read the present paper yet, but earlier papers I have read were about reducing interpretation overhead by performing fewer VM instructions (if VM instruction dispatch is expensive; dynamic superinstructions make it cheap, but not everyone implements them).
This gets the best of both worlds in practice.
The INSERT operation on a stack is often called PUSH, and the DELETE operation, which does not take an element argument, is often called POP. These names are allusions to physical stacks, such as the spring-loaded stacks of plates used in cafeterias. The order in which plates are popped from the stack is the reverse of the order in which they were pushed onto the stack, since only the top plate is accessible.
You are correct, but as the other reply mentioned, when we're talking about abstract specifications a stack typically doesn't allow reads and writes to arbitrary indices, therefore a stack machine can't perform an in-place swap. The implementation will almost certainly optimize the operation as you're describing, but I'd still expect to see a swap operation defined as "pop pop push push". Likewise I would usually expect to see an add described as popping two arguments and pushing one result, even thought the implementation probably pops one argument, then reads the second and overwrites it with the result.
In short, it's the abstract description of the thing vs the actual implementation.
https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=loader&sektion=8
Also, while it's not Forth, it could be argued that the RPL language as used on HP scientific calculators, is a kind of higher-level Forth produced by cross-breeding with Lisp. Indeed, its name, while officially not an acronym, originated as "Reverse Polish Lisp". Its implementation is also kinda awesome, because it has two layers - User RPL, which is more high-level and completely memory-safe, with error checking everywhere, and is exposed directly to calculator users; and System RPL, which basically just compiles the source directly to a bunch of call opcodes (so if you mismatch the stack at any point, it just crashes), and which is used to implement the calculator OS and stock apps, as well as User RPL.
http://sunsite.uakom.sk/sunworldonline/swol-10-1995/swol-10-...
Then again, part of the charm of forth is how easily it is to bootstrap your own forth on your own system. There could be countless homegrown forths out there, in addition to these commercial offerings.
I haven't used forth for anything in production, myself. I just think it's a really interesting language. It's a great "what if" question. What if everything built on C had been built on Forth instead? What if all the work in improving the C language, tooling, operating systems, libraries, hardware etc had been spent improving Forth and stacks instead? It's fun to ponder.
If you want to read more about forth, check out Thinking Forth[2]. It's really got some great insights about programming and software design in general, not just applicable to forth programming in particular.
Starting Forth[3] is also good more of a beginner's introduction to forth. And Moore's own Problem Oriented Language is a good book talking about what his intentions were when he created forth[4].
For more reading: This page has a lot of good forth links too [5] Chuck Moore's color forth blog[6] This site has lots of interviews with Chuck Moore on it and other forth opinion pieces[7] Forth Interest Group site[8]
There's also a new forth standard that's being worked on[9]. Seems pretty active, too.
[0] http://www.mpeforth.com/software/pc-systems/vfx-forth-for-wi...
[1] https://www.forth.com/swiftforth/
[2] http://thinking-forth.sourceforge.net/
[3] https://www.forth.com/starting-forth/0-starting-forth/
[4] http://www.forth.org/POL.pdf
[5] http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/projects/forth.html
[6] https://web.archive.org/web/20160305013837/http://www.colorf...