Re: [Simulavr-devel] [sr #107144] Simulate a device not supported

[address@hidden]

On Tue Mar 23 17:05 , Petr Hluzín  sent:

>On 23 March 2010 22:36, Onno Kortmann address@hidden> wrote:
>> It is not possible out-of-the-box, but you can implement new devices in
>> simulavrxx quite easily.
>
>"Easily". That is the thing Michael Hennebry was talking about [1].
>Preparing a package for programing (for first time) is not trivial and
>neither is getting the idea about its structure.

I think I'll give Onno a pass (just a lateral) on this one.
Others seem to be much better at divining design from code than I.
For such people, coding a new device is merely tedious.
I picked simulavrxx because I deemed it likely to be the easiest for me to 
modify.
My initial effort to convert an ATmega128 into an ATmega168
ran afoul of my ignorance and the major timer differences.

>And the new factory + runtime class registration system for
>instantiation of devices makes understanding and devices even harder.

There is no particular reason that factory systems in general should defeat
understanding.
I haven't looked at this one yet.

>I hope that the future generation from XML will be really smooth,
>since any kludges to make it work would negate any benefits the method
>could ever bring.

That would depend on whether the kludges have to be coded once
where users don't have to look at them or users have to code kludges.

>[1] http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/simulavr-devel/2010-03/msg00037.html
>- or 38? (Guessing. The list lags behind)

37 is correct.

---
Michael Hennebry
address@hidden
"War is only a hobby."
---- Msg sent via CableONE.net MyMail - http://www.cableone.net