Rockbox mail archive

• Next message: Vladimir Pantelic: "Re: Random numbers et al"
• Previous message: Daniel Stenberg: "how to unsubscribe"
• In reply to: Blue Chip: "Re: Random numbers et al"
• Next in thread: Vladimir Pantelic: "Re: Random numbers et al"
• Reply: Vladimir Pantelic: "Re: Random numbers et al"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Blue Chip wrote:

> Is there a top-down of this code anywhere - a tree of how everything hangs
> together? Please tell me that I didn't miss it in the docs dir. - that
> would be embarrasing!

There isn't. The best way, except for digging around and reading as much as
you can, is to join the IRC channel and ask questions there. (docs/TECH is
probably closest, but lacks a whole lot. docs/API was an initial attempt but
hasn't been touched in ages.)

> Where can I find the BEST info on the thread handler and other such low
> level things - it seems silly to play with code until I understand the
> basic premises upon which it works.

AFAIK, we have no docs on the thread handler... :-/

> riight, I have been working with DVD firmware for the last year or two
> where 3K of memory is considered VERY valuable.

3K is valuable, if you can gain it without losing functionality.

> Yes, again, this is a kickback of having to be anal about writing efficient
> code. The philosophy I have been forced to work with in the past can be
> summed up by the UK expression "count the pennies and the pounds will take
> care of themselves."

Such an approach is often referred to as "premature optimization" and has
more than once been called "the root of all evil". I tend to agree.

Rewriting everything into assembler might make some code execute faster, but
it'll also give us a whole lot longer development time and bug hunting
periods.

> >We want as little assembler as possible. And I'm not sure that you would
> >gain that much execution speed anyway. We would rather want easily
> >maintained code.
>
> I was not aware that your core libs were still undergoing changes. You are
> right, it is much easier to work in C until you are sure you will not be
> changing things.

We will always change things. I don't think we should ever think that we
reach a state where we won't be changing things.

And even if we don't change things, the abilty to read and understand code is
still very important. Less people can read assembler than C.

Of course, significant improvements will still get my personal support for
rewrites into asm.

> I shall look at the bug list tonight and try to fix any problems left in
> the core libs for you :)

Great! You might not easily detect which bugs that point out problems in the
"core libs" though... :-)

-- 
 Daniel Stenberg -- http://rockbox.haxx.se/ -- http://daniel.haxx.se/

• Next message: Vladimir Pantelic: "Re: Random numbers et al"
• Previous message: Daniel Stenberg: "how to unsubscribe"
• In reply to: Blue Chip: "Re: Random numbers et al"
• Next in thread: Vladimir Pantelic: "Re: Random numbers et al"
• Reply: Vladimir Pantelic: "Re: Random numbers et al"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]