Hi Onno,
then let's go the second way - implement tiny15. :-) If ADC isn't
implemented yet, this is also to do later. I haven't really a problem
with TLS. So, if we can use it in a tiny15 implementation, then it's ok.
And maybe this is a stepstone to get also the other missed (?) parts.
(but
Hi again,
Thinking about this, I think I am ok with removing the TLS if it makes your
life easier as it looks
like you are de-facto maintainer(?).
Can anybody explain why the TLS should be removed... What is exactly the
problem and why it is better to throw them away? Ok, it is dead and
at
Hey,
> Tracing contains no information of values written to memory or registers. So
> tracing only contains the stack information and the pc. That's not what I
> need :-)
> And the "trace output dump bla bla manager" is much stuff to replace a cout.
> I have no idea what is the intention to mak
Hey Thomas,
Am 21.02.2016 um 20:55 schrieb Thomas K:
> Hi Onno,
>
>> I am not sure whether the tiny15 is still in the current code base - is it?
>
>
> Isn't in code base. :-) How complete is your implementation?
Not complete. AFAIR the pins/ports and timer worked but the ADC was missing.
Thi
Hi again :-)
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. Februar 2016 um 17:53 Uhr
> Von: "Thomas K"
> An: simulavr-devel@nongnu.org
> Betreff: Re: [Simulavr-devel] Settings for stackpointer
>
> @Klaus: maybe tiny11/12/15 was implemented in the "old" version 0.1.2.6
Hi guys,
don't worry ...
@Klaus: maybe tiny11/12/15 was implemented in the "old" version 0.1.2.6?
It wasn't since I'm "on board"! And with the source control system it's easy to
check ... So, I don't agree, that so many features are dropped! I think, it
should
mean, that many things are added .
Am 23.02.2016 um 02:06 schrieb Petr Hluzín:
> It is about those tiny parts we are talking about.
We talk here about dropping working portions of the simulator in general.
> Experiments with algorithms are done on the beefiest MCU/CPU available
> because it is more convenient and author is not co
BEFORE we simply break
again existing code.
Open Source did not mean that the last committer has the best ideas.
Regards
Klaus
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. Februar 2016 um 01:32 Uhr
> Von: "Markus Hitter"
> An: simulavr-devel@nongnu.org
> Betreff: Re: [Simulavr-devel] Set
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. Februar 2016 um 01:16 Uhr
> Von: "Petr Hluzín"
> An: "Klaus Rudolph"
> Cc: "Joerg Wunsch" , Simulavr-devel
>
> Betreff: Re: [Simulavr-devel] Settings for stackpointer
>
> Simulavr does not implement a d
On 23 February 2016 at 01:32, Markus Hitter wrote:
> Am 23.02.2016 um 01:16 schrieb Petr Hluzín:
>> IMO the reason of algorithm testing and examples for learning are fantasy.
>
> D'oh. So we're doing fantasy:
>
> http://reprap.org/wiki/Teacup_Firmware#Teacup_in_SimulAVR
>
> It's also used to run s
Am 23.02.2016 um 01:16 schrieb Petr Hluzín:
> IMO the reason of algorithm testing and examples for learning are fantasy.
D'oh. So we're doing fantasy:
http://reprap.org/wiki/Teacup_Firmware#Teacup_in_SimulAVR
It's also used to run semi-automated regression tests for the firmware:
https://github
Simulavr does not implement a device that would use the three-level
stack. The code ThreeLevelStack in src\hwstack.h is not reachable, it
is dead, therefore there cannot be a discussion about dropping the
feature.
The parts are difficult to get and it is likely to get worse.
People have provided
Hi,
>
> Right now, none of ATtiny11/12/15 or AT90S1200 is listed as a supported
> device in simulavr.
> --
Nice to hear that another feature was dropped...
It's time to start a own private stable version ...
Regards
Klaus
___
Simulavr-devel maili
As Klaus wrote:
> Yes, you can't buy them anymore. But there are maybe some people which
> have some devices "on stack" :-)
They are pretty pointless.
I once had an ATtiny11, I extra "invented" some small (toy)
functionality in order to not throw it away. I wouldn't have
considered using it
Hi Markus,
Am 21.02.2016 um 21:06 schrieb Markus Hitter:
Am 21.02.2016 um 20:48 schrieb Thomas K:
But, we haven't this parts in simulavr! Sure, we can implement this
parts, but if nobody use it? (that's the question!) In the moment I
haven't a problem with that code. It's unused and just dea
Hi Thomas,
be relaxed ... :-) Controller with 3 level stack instead of a real stack
pointer are obsolete.
Yes, you can't buy them anymore. But there are maybe some people which
have some devices "on stack" :-) I also have some at90s1200 and maybe
someday I will use them... maybe also not, I
Am 21.02.2016 um 20:48 schrieb Thomas K:
> But, we haven't this parts in simulavr! Sure, we can implement this
> parts, but if nobody use it? (that's the question!) In the moment I
> haven't a problem with that code. It's unused and just dead code! But
> why maintain this, if not used?
A contradic
On 21.02.2016 20:48, Thomas K wrote:
To answer Albrechts question about who use simulavr: that's the
problem of all - it could be from 5 to thousands ... :-) In normal
distributions simulavr package is available - but in version
0.1.2.6! For debian a package maintainer is wanted. I assume, that
Hi Onno,
I am not sure whether the tiny15 is still in the current code base - is it?
Isn't in code base. :-) How complete is your implementation?
cu, Thomas
___
Simulavr-devel mailing list
Simulavr-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailma
Hi Klaus,
be relaxed ... :-) Controller with 3 level stack instead of a real stack
pointer are obsolete. (as Jörg already wrote) If you look on atmel site
this parts are not listed any more. (even the really small tiny's like
tiny4/5/9/10 have real stack pointer) Of course you can buy tiny11 a
Hey,
Am 21.02.2016 um 15:25 schrieb Albrecht Frenzel:
> How many users of simulavr recently use it (or plan) to simulate
> tiny11/12/15 or at90s1200?
>
> Does anybody know, how many people really use simulavr?
>
I am using simulavr from time to time (maybe every couple months) and I believe
(am
How many users of simulavr recently use it (or plan) to simulate
tiny11/12/15 or at90s1200?
Does anybody know, how many people really use simulavr?
On 21.02.2016 08:18, Klaus wrote:
Hi all,
So the question is: is there a need to implement tiny11/12/15?
(at90s1200 is to old, I think) If n
Hi all,
So the question is: is there a need to implement tiny11/12/15?
(at90s1200 is to old, I think) If not, then we should remove this
implementation.
I think they're all obsolete now.
Please do not remove things which are working. There are so many
features dropped in the last years.
As Thomas K wrote:
> So the question is: is there a need to implement tiny11/12/15?
> (at90s1200 is to old, I think) If not, then we should remove this
> implementation.
I think they're all obsolete now.
--
cheers, Joerg .-.-. --... ...-- -.. . DL8DTL
http://www.sax.de/~joe
Hi @list,
I've reviewed all datasheets for informations about stackpointer. Result
is on https://sourceforge.net/p/simulavr/wiki/Reg:Stackpointer/. Below
the table are points, which will be different implemented against
datasheets - datasheets are not plausible in this cases.
And one questio
25 matches
Mail list logo
