Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Improving simulator
Re: Improving simulator
From: Dominik Riebeling <dominik.riebeling_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 15:13:02 +0200
On 5/10/07, Dave Chapman <dave_at_dchapman.com> wrote:
> That's what I'm saying - people have been mistakenly adding #ifdef
> SIMULATOR when it's not needed, or adding it as a quick fix instead of
> implemnting things for the simulator.
> I can't see how this will change with a target-tree approach - either
> you need to implement things in SDL, or the sim will continue to not
> behave the same as the real device.
There is also another concern that pops in my head: the more-advanced
users (i.e. those who want to use the sim, but are not too much into
the Rockbox code itself) might think it is just another port of
Rockbox, namely to the PC. This might cause quite some confusion.
I don't think it's worth the effort, instead, providing more stubs
would be easier and faster reaching almost the same goal IMO. You'll
need to implement the stuff for the PC anyway (as you otherwise would
need to #if defined(CPU_SDL) or something similar, which doesn't make
a difference at all), and when moving you also need to verify all #if
Received on 2007-05-10