Re: [Simulavr-devel] [patch #7032] unitialized HWUart, did never finish sending

[ThomasK]

Hi Petr,

I have a little bit more time, traffic situation today isn't really 
good. ;-)

> Because the ATmegaXX is the canonical (manufacturer's) name. ... (First 
> argument.)

You are right on that. But I think, that's not a really big issue. I 
asked, because I want to understand, why. So, I think, your solution, to 
make device type case independent is ok. It makes it possible to use 
both forms, even if AtMeGa16 also would work. (a type of art, of course 
:-)) )

> Do users test if their MCU type is ok for compiler by feeding it to
> simulator the first? I think they do not, they feed it to compiler
> first (usually by makefile). In such case the relaxed requirement in
> simulator does not matter.

If you write and compile a program at first and then start simulavr by 
hand. People are (ok, should be ... ;-) ) flexible enough to use the 
right writing.

But think about automated test systems and the scripts behind. If you 
use 2 forms to explain device type, you have to configure it. Two times 
the same information with different writing is one possible source of 
mistakes. And such automated tests are necessary! I have found some bugs 
in code by using (now more extended) regression tests over all device 
types. And we need much more of such tests!

> (Cannot we fix the compiler?)

Can you move the mountains? ;-)

> By the way avrdude uses (and used to require) a "code" of m16 for that
> chip. What about requiring "m16"?
>
> It smells like adjusting an interface suit machine well at expense of humans.

You are right. But sometimes humans are also a little bit inconsequent 
... ;-)

> I have not, my changes are bit older. My repository is based on CVS
> around 2009-06. I made quick look at Onno's git repo. I found some
> interesting changes and some fixes I independently made, too. I found
> a discussion about a repository/version-system on the list but I did
> not see a conclusion.

That's right, there is no conclusion. What's your opinion to this 
discussion? Stay on CVS or change it? Btw. the "old" code base is also 
available in Onno's repo. (cvs-upstream branch!) And I think, it's right 
to hold this code base available and support it, till we release a new 
official version of simulavr.

> (I want to keep some changes in my private repository.)

Why not, that's possible and normal. And with git it's much more easy to 
hold such changes in private branches and to participate in all new 
changes from "offcial" branches. (or other private or development 
changes of course)

cu, Thomas