In article <CANc9Z=wueKQ8XJ95mGVQkq-gzdLAWpQ9ZN+N8Le=r4r67mf...@mail.gmail.com>, Peter Howkins <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, 10 May 2020 at 21:40, Andrew Hodgkinson > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 11 May 2020, at 2:25, John McCartney wrote: > > > > [...] interpreter or the dynamic recompiler [...] > > What's the difference and on what basis should I base > > my decision? > > > > The interpreter is slow but accurate, treating each ARM > > instruction sequence it encounters as if it were the > > for first time and translating them over and over. The > > recompiler tries to remember previously converted > > sequences, which increases speed a great deal but > > because of the complexities of CPUs and the > > recompilation process, this can reduce emulation > > accuracy and cause problems with some pieces of > > software. > > > > I recommend you build both. Use the recompiler version > > normally, but if you encounter crashes you wouldn't > > expect from a normal RISC OS machine, switch to the > > interpreter version. I'm sorry I didn't reply to this at the time, Andrew, but thanks for the explanation. Also, in reply to my post on 28 May, you suggested that rpcemu-recompiler might not have been set as an executable; in fact it had been. > A bit more info here; I'll try to remember to update the > compile pages to link to what the different builds are. > The most important thing is to report as bugs things that > don't work in the recompiler but do in the interpreter, > it's not that the recompiler *can't* be as accurate, it's > just that it isn't. Unreported bugs are much less likely > to get fixed. Another apology for my lack of a reply. I'm aware that bugs can't be fixed unless they're reported and I'll certainly do so if and when I find any. However, I'm hardly a power user and so might not come across (m)any bugs at all. John -- John McCartney [email protected] _______________________________________________ RPCEmu mailing list [email protected] http://www.riscos.info/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rpcemu
