Re: [Simulavr-devel] [PATCH] use static callbacks instead of template param for IOReg

[Klaus Rudolph]

Hi all,

can someone assist me a bit to catch the problem and the background 
please? :-)

Which controller and which registers on that controller(s) are affected. 
It would be nice if someone points me to two or more different registers 
on a single controller core which provide "new" SBI/CBI functionality.

Have we more than an SBI/CBI issue? More instructions requiring rework?

It would also be nice if the "new" functionality is described in a few 
words and the wrong effect we currently have implemented. A direct 
reference to datasheet is highly welcome.

Yes, it sounds a bit mysterious for a maintainer to ask this question, 
but I can only spend some minutes in the moment. Sorry for that!

Thanks a lot!
 Klaus






Am 17.06.2017 um 19:41 schrieb Michael Hennebry:
> The PINx toggle of PORTx bits is not a new feature.
> simulavr must support this.
> A RMW implementation of SBI also does not work on registers with interrupt 
> flags.
>
> That does not imply the goodness of a major data structure organization.
> I note that an SBI instruction can only address registers on which it works.
> Allowing extra functionality in other registers should not cause problems.
>
> Note that on some old AVRs, SBI *is* RMW and their datasheets reflect this.
>
> The confusing cyclic reference is called the curiously recurring template 
> pattern.
> Not evil.
> Pointers to void are not preferable.
> As a rule, in C++, pointers to void are a bad idea.
>
> I'm not clear on the template parameter type issue.
> template <typename T> class {  ... public: typedef T parametertype; ... } ;
>
>
> Michael Hennebry
>
> _______________________________________________
> Simulavr-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/simulavr-devel
>
> _______________________________________________
> Simulavr-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/simulavr-devel