N . Moran'
Subject: Re: [Simulavr-devel] Uniform the code
Eric's comment on speed suggests a vote against pointers.
I haven't noticed any votes for pointers.
Please note that I am agnostic when it comes to methods/algorithms; I'm not a
C++ programmer. But instead of having bickering
PM
To: '' simulavr-devel @ nongnu . org ''; 'Michael N . Moran'
Subject: Re: [Simulavr-devel] Uniform the code
Eric's comment on speed suggests a vote against pointers.
I haven't noticed any votes for pointers.
Please note that I am agnostic when it comes to
methods/algorithms; I'm
; Weddington, Eric
Subject: RE: [Simulavr-devel] Uniform the code
A major increase in the number of items to allocate
would be a major increase in the allocation time.
My recollection is that simulated RAM is allocated a byte at a time.
Is that correct?
If so, can it be changed?
I don't know
; Weddington, Eric
Subject: RE: [Simulavr-devel] Uniform the code
A major increase in the number of items to allocate
would be a major increase in the allocation time.
My recollection is that simulated RAM is allocated a byte
at a time.
Is that correct?
If so, can it be changed
Hi Knut,
Since I am the one who originally submitted the
atmega48 patch, I'll try to address this.
Knut Schwichtenberg wrote:
first of all I must clarify I'm NOT a C++ specialist.
I write embedded C++ code most days... so I can probably
help to clarify my choices.
Currently there is a
As I understand discussion so far:
The atmega128 simulated cpu has pointers to its components.
The atmega48 simulated cpu contains its components as objects.
At least one person regards that difference as a bad idea.
The atmega48 author provided reasons for doing it his way, e.g. error checking.
henne...@cableone.net wrote:
As I understand discussion so far:
The atmega128 simulated cpu has pointers to its components.
The atmega48 simulated cpu contains its components as objects.
Nice summary... and *much* less verbose than mine ;)
What reasons for avoiding pointers apply to the
On Sat Apr 11 17:34 , Michael N. Moran sent:
henne...@cableone.net wrote:
What reasons for avoiding pointers apply to the
atmega48 that do not apply to the atmega128?
If pointers are useful,
two of the reasons for avoiding them could be avoided with smart pointers.
I assume that you mean
