Several good articles have been published on providing Forth interrupt response; but I wanted to meet the challenge of accomplishing high-level Forth interrupt service in a way that was much simpler yet would work in most indirect-threaded systems not using preemptive multitasking. (Side note: I have an article on this website on simple methods for multitasking without a multitasking OS, for systems that lack the resources to implement a multitasking OS, or where hard realtime requirements would rule one out anyway.)
Several people told me it couldn't be done, which of course only fueled my fire. The result I've been using for 27 years now is described here. I wanted it in 1990 for the production automated test equipment (ATE) I designed and programmed, shown here. The RS-232 input from the PC for software development was handled at 9600 bps through a 65C51 ACIA entirely by interrupts in high-level Forth on a 2MHz 65C02.
One man told me that he always does interrupts in assembly for speed, so he wasn't very interested in high-level Forth interrupt service. The nice thing here is that when you eliminate the overhead, you get some of the speed back. (Also, error-reporting and handling becomes easier.) You can of course still have assembly-language ISRs also if you like, and they will get priority over the Forth ISRs.
The zero-overhead interrupt support is simple, adds only about 100 bytes to your overall code, and can be nested—ie, you can allow a higher-priority interrupt to interrupt the servicing of a lower-priority one—as many interrupt levels deep as you wish. No additional stacks are required. It's another natural for Forth. As usual for interrupts, some assembly is required to get the system going, but very little.
I call it "zero-overhead" interrupt response because when an interrupt occurs, the Forth system moves right into the interrupt-service routine (ISR) just as if it were part of the normal code. Simply put, it is as if a new word was suddenly inserted into the executing code—a word whose stack effect is ( -- ).
To illustrate, suppose we had an interrupt service routine (word) which, for the sake of simplicity, only consisted of:
: ISR ( -- ) 1 COUNTER +! SYSRTI ;and Forth was executing the 2 in the line,
PRINTER 2 SPACES BOLD_ONwhen an interrupt was requested. Although slightly faster—yes, faster!—the effect would otherwise be the same as if there were no interrupts and the line had said,
PRINTER 2 INC_COUNTER SPACES BOLD_ONwhere INC_COUNTER had been defined as
: INC_COUNTER ( -- ) 1 COUNTER +! ;like ISR above. As you can see, the main program and the interrupt can both execute without interfering with each other, even though they both use the same stacks and other basic resources.
So how is it done? The coordination that avoids the overhead requirement is done in NEXT, indirect-threaded Forth's inner loop.
It is not necessary to save anything before executing the ISR or restore anything afterward. The only exception is that the SYSRTI above is like an ordinary unnest (or EXIT , SEMIS , ;S , etc., whatever it is called in your system) except that it also restores the ability to accept interrupts if appropriate. You may even decide to omit the SYSRTI . If you do use the SYSRTI , the semicolon after it has no effect at run time.
Since servicing the interrupt does not require saving things, the interrupt service routine does not need any more stack space than other Forth words. Assuming we already had enough stack space to run Forth normally (we actually have plenty on the 6502), we shouldn't need to worry about running out just because of the interrupts.
The possible disadvantage with this method is that a primitive (i.e., code definition) cannot be interrupted. Whatever is requesting service must wait until the current primitive is finished. This would only be a problem if you have primitives that take a long time to execute, and if those primitives are used at the times interrupt service is requested, and if the interrupt can't wait that long.
Otherwise, consider that it will typically take many primitives to service the interrupt, and it would be an insignificant delay to wait for one primitive in the main program to finish executing. It typically takes far less time to finish the currently executing primitive than to do all the register-saving and other setups required by other methods of high-level-language interrupt service.
The only return-from-interrupt overhead that is almost necessary with this method is that of re-enabling interrupts. If you don't need this done on a return from interrupt, the interrupt service routine can be a normal colon definition (or secondary), ending with the standard unnest compiled by ; (semicolon), and there will be absolutely zero overhead for return from interrupt too.
Here comes the assembly. We have to make some small changes in NEXT, indirect-threaded Forth's inner loop, that basically amount to polling. These changes slow down the Forth execution by about one-thirtieth; however the absence of a big overhead penalty means that you'll get far more than this one-thirtieth back if interrupts come often.
In the Forth-83 system where I have implemented this on a 65C02, a couple of machine-language instructions added to NEXT load a byte from memory while simultaneously examining it to see whether it is zero or not. A branch is taken if appropriate. The choices are either to continue on as usual in NEXT , or to load the word pointer W with the interrupt vector instead of with the contents of the address pointed to by the instruction pointer IP.
Some of the time taken by the extra pair of machine-language instructions is saved by the fact that we only allow two values for the byte which is fetched to see if interrupt service is necessary. These are values we would have to load into the processor's Y register anyway, even if we could somehow execute the right part of NEXT without testing.
If there is an interrupt to service, the new part of NEXT also turns off the bit in memory which records that there is interrupt service due. This takes less time than incrementing the instruction pointer; and loading the interrupt vector into the word pointer W requires no indirect addressing. This means that the nest (or DOCOL , etc.) instruction in the interrupt handler actually gets executed sooner than the next instruction in the main code would have been executed had there been no interrupt!
My original version of NEXT (before interrupt service implementation) was right out of the public-domain FIG-Forth 6502 assembly source, like Listing One-A.
Listing One-A: Original version of NEXT (no interrupt support)
NEXT: LDY #1 ; Load Y for indirect indexing. Next, load accumulator LDA (IP),Y ; with hi byte of cell pointed to by instruction pointer. STA W+1 ; Store it in hi byte of word pointer. DEY ; Decrement Y to 0. Some primitives expect Y to contain 0. LDA (IP),Y ; Load accum with lo byte of cell pointed to by instruction STA W ; pointer, and store that in lo byte of word pointer. CLC ; Now advance the IP. Start addition with carry flag clear. LDA IP ; Load accumulator with instruction pointer lo byte, ADC #2 ; add two to it, and STA IP ; store it back where you got it. BCC next1 ; If the addition above didn't cause a carry, branch around INC IP+1 ; the incrementing of the hi byte. Otherwise, increment. next1: JMP W-1 ; Jump to where it says JMP (W), so we get a doubly indirect ;---------------- ; jump.Listing One-B: NEXT modified for interrupt support
NEXT: LDY irqnot ; Load Y with 0 if interrupt requested, otherwise 1. BEQ runISR ; Branch if interrupt requested, else continue here. ; Y=1 now for indirect indexing. Load accumulator LDA (IP),Y ; with hi byte of cell pointed to by instruction pointer. STA W+1 ; Store it in the hi byte of the word pointer. DEY ; Decrement Y to 0. Some primitives will need Y to be 0. LDA (IP),Y ; Load accum with lo byte of cell pointed to by instruction STA W ; pointer, and store that in lo byte of word pointer. CLC ; Now advance the IP. Start addition with carry flag clear. LDA IP ; Load accumulator with instruction pointer lo byte, ADC #2 ; add two to it, STA IP ; and store it back where you got it. BCS inc_hi ; If the above addition caused a carry, branch to increment JMP W-1 ; hi byte of instruction pointer. Else you're done. Do it ; with two JMP's because a branch not taken saves a cycle. inc_hi: INC IP+1 ; Increment hi byte of instruction pointer. JMP W-1 ; You're done. ;----------------- ; If interrupt was requested, run this part instead. runISR: INC irqnot ; Set irqnot=1, meaning no further Forth interrupt ; service requested after this yet. LDA FIRQVEC+1 ; Load the word pointer with the address pointed to STA W+1 ; by FIRQVEC , a new Forth user variable. LDA FIRQVEC ; Load hi byte first, then lo byte. FIRQVEC is a RAM STA W ; address which holds the Forth interrupt request ; vector CFA. JMP W-1 ; Jump to where it says JMP (W), so we get a ;----------------- ; doubly indirect jump.After the modification, NEXT looks like the code in Listing One-B. Notice how much shorter the code is for responding to an interrupt than for continuing on with the next instruction in the main Forth code! This makes the relative interrupt response time very short. We no longer have to increment the instruction pointer when going to the interrupt-handling word. If we did, the latter would be replacing the next Forth instruction in the main code instead of delaying it.
You will need a piece of machine code at the address pointed to by the machine-recognized interrupt vector location. If interrupts are enabled, this piece of code will be executed like any other short machine-language ISR as soon as the hardware interrupt-request line goes true and the currently executing machine-language instruction finishes. This code only needs to put a byte in memory which can later be tested by NEXT, and disable the machine interrupt response so that the same code doesn't get executed over and over. Mine looks like Listing Two.
Listing Two: This registers the interrupt request for NEXT .
irqrouting: ; Machine-recognized interrupt vector at FFFE points here. JMP (MIRQVEC) ; Jump to address pointed to by the machine-language ; interrupt vector MIRQVEC , which is initially setirq. setirq: ; Use to record IRQ for NEXT. Put this address in MIRQVEC. STZ irqnot ; Record that interrupt was req'ed by storing 0 in irqnot. STA tempA ; Temporarily save accumulator in tempA to restore below. PLA ; Pull saved processor status byte off the μP stack, ORA #4 ; set the bit corresponding to the interrupt disable, PHA ; and push the revised status byte back on the stack. LDA tempA ; Restore the accumulator content. RTI ; Return from interrupt. μP status gets restored modified.Next, you will need Forth primitives that enable and disable interrupting. I call them IRQOK and NOIRQ . Another primitive, IRQOK? , returns my interrupt-disable flag. See Listing Three.
Listing Three: Interrupt-disable flag support words
CODE IRQOK ( -- ) ; Compile header for IRQOK . Since it's CLI ; a primitive, the CFA points here to CLI JMP NEXT ; instruction. All done now so jump out. CODE NOIRQ ( -- ) ; Compile the header for NOIRQ . The SEI ; only instruction is SEI, then you go JMP NEXT : back to NEXT for the next Forth word. CODE IRQOK? ( -- f ) ; f=0 means interrupts are disabled. PHP ; Bring processor status register PLA ; contents into accumulator. AND #4 ; Look at only the I bit. BEQ 1$ ; If clear, branch to put true flag JMP PUSH-FALSE ; on the data stack. Else false. 1$: JMP PUSH-TRUE ; These branch to NEXT when done.A byte in RAM called irqok? (lower case) is used as a flag to record whether or not Forth interrupts are being allowed. irqok? is checked by SYSRTI , my Forth return-from-interrupt word. When a peripheral requests an interrupt, setirq (in Listing Two) disables further interrupting but leaves irqok? alone so the interrupt permission status will be correctly restored at the end of the ISR.
You will usually leave interrupts disabled while the Forth interrupt service word is executing, and re-enable them when the interrupt service word finishes. SYSRTI is nothing more than unnest preceded by a few machine language instructions to examine the content of irqok? and set or clear the processor's interrupt-disable bit accordingly. If you don't ever need to change the value of that bit immediately upon return, you can omit SYSRTI , and the service word can be like any other colon definition. (If you do use SYSRTI , remember to follow it with the semicolon if you haven't made SYSRTI do all the compile-time jobs that ; does.) My SYSRTI looks like the code in Listing Four.
Listing Four: Forth return-from-interrupt
CODE SYSRTI ( -- ) ; Lay header and code field down. SEI ; Start with interrupting disabled. LDA irqok? ; Load & test byte at addr IRQOK? to see if IRQs are ok. BEQ unnest+2 ; If not ok, don't execute next CLI instruction. CLI ; Else clear interrupt disable flag. BRA unnest+2 ; Branch to body of unnest (1st addr after code field).To allow nested interrupts, an interrupt service word must re-enable interrupts (by invoking IRQOK ). If you chose to do this, you might also want to push or otherwise save the content of irqok? and change it. This is so each return from interrupt leaves the interrupt-disable flag in the appropriate state. Of course if the flag is put back to the way it was just before the interrupt, it will always allow interrupts again. This is what SYSRTI will give you unless there was something in the ISR that turned off irqok? . The purpose of irqok? is to tell SYSRTI whether or not to re-enable interrupts.
With indirect-threaded code, the average Forth primitive takes about 80 clocks to execute on the 65C02, including time spent in NEXT , the inner loop. Since, on the average, an interrupt will hit in the middle of an executing primitive (paired with NEXT ), and since NEXT is quicker at starting interrupt service than it is at normal code, the average interrupt latency will be about 90 clocks, or 6.4μs at 14MHz. All the 65C02's WDC is selling today are guaranteed to be able to run at least this fast. The 6.4μs includes the time taken by the short machine-language routine pointed to by the machine interrupt-request vector MIRQVEC . Some other 8-bit processors cannot even achieve this kind of interrupt latency in machine language; so to do it in Forth with the 65C02 is excellent! 14MHz makes for about 175,000 Forth primitives per second, but the 14MHz speed rating currently available turns out to be a conservative rating, and actual capability is generally much higher. Again, this is for an indirect-threaded Forth implementation, which may be the slowest of four or five methods but allows this simple interrupt method and has some other advantages in interactive code development.
A Forth interrupt service routine that only looks at a 65C51 ACIA might look like this:
: SYSIRQ POLL_ACIA DROP SYSRTI ; ( -- )Since here we only have one possible source of interrupts, we can DROP the flag telling whether or not it was the ACIA that requested service.
If we had several possible interrupt sources, our SYSIRQ might look like the code in Listing Five-A. The highest-priority interrupt sources are polled first. Once the source of the interrupt is found and serviced, the following polls in the ISR are skipped. Again, each polling word called here leaves a flag on the data stack telling whether it was able to take care of the interrupt.
Listing Five-A: Interrupt handler that polls potential interrupt sources.
: SYSIRQ ( -- ) POLL_TIMER NOT IF POLL_ACIA NOT IF POLL_KEYBOARD NOT IF POLL_PRINTER DROP THEN THEN THEN SYSRTI ;Listing Five-B is an alternative that uses a support word. ?EXIT is just my word to factor out occurrences of IF EXIT THEN . Any prioritized polling of interrupt sources can be put or called between SYSIRQ and SYSRTI above.
Listing Five-B: Alternative with a support word
: POLL ( -- ) POLL_TIMER ?EXIT POLL_ACIA ?EXIT POLL_KEYBOARD ?EXIT POLL_PRINTER DROP ; : SYSIRQ POLL SYSRTI ; ( -- )To go a step further, the ?EXIT could be made part of each polling word.
Notice that the SYSRTI ends the two SYSIRQ examples of Listing-Five A and B, so the called polling words ( POLL_TIMER , POLL_ACIA , etc.) themselves should just end with the normal semicolon like any other colon definition.
Table One gives a summary of the changes and additions used to accomplish zero-overhead high-level Forth interrupt service. A list of requirements is first, followed by a list of enhancements.
Table One: Summary of new code
Necessary: NEXT (Modified, not new.) Inner loop for indirect-threaded model. irqnot RAM byte to record whether or not an interrupt is pending. Used by NEXT. NOIRQ Primitive to set μP interrupt disable bit ( -- ) Just does SEI. IRQOK Primitive to clear μP interrupt disable bit ( -- ) Just does CLI. setirq Machine-language interrupt routine that puts 0 in irqnot to tell NEXT that an interrupt was requested. SYSIRQ Colon definition for actual high-level interrupt service. No special rules except that it usually will have SYSRTI just before the semicolon. ( -- ) RESET (Modified, not new.) Before the first execution of NEXT, put 1 in irqnot. COLD (Modified, not new.) Initialize all interrupt vectors. Initialization of hardware is done before invoking IRQOK . Optional: IRQOK? Primitive to read μP interrupt disable bit ( -- f ) Flag=0 means interrupts are disabled. irqok? RAM byte to record whether or not to restore interrupt capability upon return from interrupt. SYSRTI Primitive ( unnest version for return from interrupt). Examines irqok? byte ( -- ) MIRQVEC Variable containing an address used by the machine ISR for a jump indirect. This allows installing higher-priority machine-language ISRs ahead of the Forth interrupt operations. (More below.) FIRQVEC Variable containing the Forth interrupt vector (actually a CFA). If you have more than one high- level interrupt service word, put the CFA of one of them here. NEXT uses it to load the word pointer W from in order to service the interrupt.So far we have assumed we are servicing interrupts requested on the IRQ line. If you want to service an interrupt on the NMI line, or transfer the idea to another processor with more interrupt inputs, each associated vector would put the appropriate interrupt handler address in the FIRQVEC variable.
If you have hardware that prioritizes interrupts and gives the processor a byte to read to determine the source of an interrupt without polling, it may be appropriate to have a look-up table to convert the byte into a CFA of an interrupt handler.
As mentioned in Table One, you can still install a machine-language ISR that will get priority over the Forth ISRs. If you want to add something to the machine-language IRQ routine, your routine must meet these requirements:
The high-level Forth interrupt system I am using in my 65C02 Forth now allows up to 8 simultaneously "armed" ISRs, and has Forth words to install, prioritize, list, and delete ISRs on the fly. This does add a little overhead so it's no longer "zero overhead," but still has no new stacks or separate sets of any variables etc.. The running through the list of installed ISRs can still be preceded by a single zero-overhead Forth ISR if desired, with this single zero-overhead Forth ISR's installation being similar to that shown above for machine-language ISRs.
My 65816 Forth additionally affords a list of up to 8 machine-language ISRs that can be manipulated on the fly similarly to how the Forth ISRs are in the description above. (I did not do this part on the 65C02 Forth because it is not as practical since entire 16-bit addresses cannot be handled all at once with the 6502's 8-bit registers, so little would be gained.) The '816 Forth ISR system does allow for situations where if a problem is found by a machine-language ISR, you can transfer execution to a Forth ISR in order to use the Forth words for displaying, etc. to report the problem or access other system capabilities.
Something I did in the '816 Forth to speed up NEXT was to integrate W and IP as actual operands of instructions in NEXT . This eliminates a level of indirection and shortens the code. It does however mean that NEXT must reside in the direct page (which I am keeping as zero page). This means that if the bulk of the Forth kernel is in ROM, NEXT must be copied to RAM before running. NEXT is only five instructions for IRQ however and seven for non-IRQ, so it takes up very little of my zero page. There is a way to get the non-IRQ portion down to a total of four instructions. However since the cycle count is not reduced and other small complications are incurred, I don't think it's worth it. (Side note: Bruce Clark shows a two-instruction '816 NEXT for ITC Forth here, and a single-instruction, 6-clock '816 NEXT for DTC Forth here, but they are nearly prohibitive of interrupts.) Unlike in 6502 Forth, my '816 NEXT does leave the carry flag alone, which I suppose means you could use it to streamline multiple-precision arithmetic operations.
Since these extras in the Forth ISR system are not specifically related to the 6502 (or even 65816), they will not be explained here. It is also not my purpose here to show all the variations that can be implemented on the '02 and '816, but to convey the basic idea in a functional way. Once that is understood, programmer ingenuity along with the prerequisite familiarity with Forth will go a long way. If you want to discuss it however, you can email me at the address above, or better, in the Forth section of the 6502.org forum.
I do plan to post my very complete 65816 Forth source and later possibly my 65C02 Forth as well, and these will have very detailed explanation of all the innards. These are definitely not wimpy minimalist models. They include things like trig, log, square root, clock, calendar, and alarm functions, hundreds of primitives (code definitions) for good performance, extended-precision arithmetic words, an assembler, extra string functions, and extra compiling, debugging, and developing tools. It's modular, so you can select to include only the files you want.
In the '816 Forth, NEXT does not poll to see if interrupt service has been requested like the '02 Forth NEXT does with the BEQ after the LDY. The common code definitions end with JMP (NEXTadr) instead of JMP NEXT , and NEXTadr contains the address of the right part of NEXT to run, either for beginning interrupt service or for continuing on with the code it was already executing.
I have not looked into the implications of using this interrupt method with any kind of multitasking that gives each task its own stack space. For the type of work I do, the multitasking I can get with what is discussed in my article on simple methods for multitasking without a multitasking OS, for systems that lack the resources for a multitasking OS, or where hard realtime requirements might rule one out anyway, is adequate. Round-robin cooperative multitasking is not very difficult to do in Forth on a 6502, where each task gets its own dedicated stack space. I expect the zero-overhead interrupt method would work fine on such systems as long as interrupts are not accepted during task switches, especially when the stack pointers are getting changed.
Hopefully it won't take too much head-scratching or meditation for all this to make sense. It really is quite simple as high-level interrupt service methods go; and if multiple nesting doesn't make it irresistible, the elimination of separate stacks and other overhead certainly should.
Last page update: Nov 25, 2017. Garth Wilson firstname.lastname@example.org