On Sat, 1 Mar 2014, Markus Hitter wrote:
Am 28.02.2014 20:33, schrieb Michael Hennebry:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2014, Onno Kortmann wrote:
But IMHO the general approach of having a text-based configuration file
for AVR topologies, even if those files are kept up to date manually, is
still a good idea. I think it is better than having C++ files filled
with what is essentially just declarative configuration data. But I
guess that's arguing about taste :-)
No. It is not.
Where to put data, in how many places and amongst
how much clutter is not just a matter of taste.
To defend Onno a bit, such a file is already in use. It's the one used
for tracing signals into VCD files. It's a single file in an arbitrary
position, you pass a path to it as parameter. See -c and -o parameters
for simulavr.
I'd thought this was already clear:
I was not attacking Onno's suggested code and data organization.
I was attacking the notion that the decision to be made is just about taste.
The notion had it coming.
Extending this file to also hold stuff like CPU frequency or connected
devices (one line each) with an idiot-proof syntax appears to be
plausible. SIMINFO inside the AVR binary would go away, as well as
changes to ELF reading and this shared header file.
--
Michael henne...@web.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu
"SCSI is NOT magic. There are *fundamental technical
reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young
goat to your SCSI chain now and then." -- John Woods
_______________________________________________
Simulavr-devel mailing list
Simulavr-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/simulavr-devel
