|
Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Please help test gerrit#890Re: Please help test gerrit#890
From: Thomas Martitz <kugel_at_rockbox.org>
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2014 21:18:46 +0200 Am 05.07.2014 10:30, schrieb Jonathan Gordon: > > > > On 4 July 2014 16:21, Thomas Martitz <kugel_at_rockbox.org > <mailto:kugel_at_rockbox.org>> wrote: > > Why do you except this to fix skin issues? It only _adds_ fragile > pointer management. What's wrong with the current aproach? > > What's wrong with the current approach is that it is extremely > difficult to track down bugs when they happen, and that the code > itself is quite bloated (seriously +5k to do offset after adding all > the code to move the pointers!). This way when there is an issue we > get a lovely data abort with a PC. What makes you believe that you get a data abort on a PC when you wouldn't get one now? This is a false assumption. What you are proposing to add is the exact opposite what we did a few years back, when we all happily agreed that the offset-approach is better for the skin engine. Please clear me up on why you want to reverse that choice. And better debuggability is not true. You don't get a data abort for "forgetting to update pointer", which is a scenario is is luckily impossible in the current code. Best regards. Received on 2014-07-06 Page template was last modified "Tue Sep 7 00:00:02 2021" The Rockbox Crew -- Privacy Policy |