Re: gforthmi instructions confused regarding relocatability

[Anton Ertl]

On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 12:22:16PM +0100, Ethan Gardener wrote:
> In the gforth documentation, at the bottom of section 13.5.1, are some 
> confused statements. To quote:
> 
> > A special doubly indirect threaded version of the gforth executable is used 
> > for creating the non-relocatable images; you can pass the exact filename of 
> > this executable through the environment variable GFORTHD (default: 
> > gforth-ditc); if you pass a version that is not doubly indirect threaded, 
> > you will not get a fully relocatable image, but a data-relocatable image 
> > (because there is no code address offset). The normal gforth executable is 
> > used for creating the relocatable image; you can pass the exact filename of 
> > this executable through the environment variable GFORTH. 
> 
> I think "not get a fully relocatable image," should be "not get a 
> non-relocatable image,".

Both is true (the resulting image is data-relocatable, not fully
relocatabale nor non-relocatable).  I doubt that anybody has been
using data-relocatable images for a long time, if ever: they are
engine-specific and do not work with dynamic native code (the
default), and offer no advantage over fully relocatable images.  So I
think we will eliminate the mention of data-relocatable images in the
documentation.

- anton