Weddington, Eric wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: henne...@cableone.net [mailto:henne...@cableone.net]
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2009 10:39 AM
To: henne...@cableone.net; '' simulavr-devel @ nongnu . org
''; 'Michael N . Moran'; wedding...@csogate.cso.atmel.com;
wedding...@csogate.cso.atmel.com; 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 if it is correct or not. If it is, then why
can't the RAM be allocated as a single object? Would that
make it faster?
I will wade back through all this tomorrow but it would be
interesting to baseline the time required to run the tests
now on avrtest or simulavr and go ahead and try to run them
on simulavrxx. It should have all the key features for automated
testing now and the issue will be tests that pass on one of the
other simulator and fail on simulavrxx.
Eric are you the one who runs it?
I used to run it on a daily basis. Now it's on an "occasional" basis. Mike
Stein has set up some automatic testing on the GCC Compile Farm which tests the avr on a
daily basis.
I have emailed him a few times. I don't know which targets he knows
about in detail but he runs a lot of them.
After I wade through some higher priority stuff, I'll see about getting a
baseline to work from, with avrtest, and simulavrxx HEAD.
Once the context switch code is working on rtems/avr, I should be able
to turn on
avr-rtems testing as well. We have a couple of quad-core machines we
use for gcc
testing.
--joel
_______________________________________________
Simulavr-devel mailing list
Simulavr-devel@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/simulavr-devel
