From: Paulo M. <pma...@gr...> - 2004-10-27 11:11:54
|
Kendall Bennett wrote: > Paulo Marques <pma...@gr...> wrote: > ..... >>If the same treatment is applied to ops2.c and prim_ops.c, I >>believe it would be possible to have a functional emulator for >>about 32kb of kernel code size, which seems pretty reasonable to >>me and could solve a lot of problems. > > > Wow, that is great! Thanks :) > >>The decrease in source code size also helps maintenance, since >>there is not so much repeated code has it was before. >> >>Of course, these changes are optimizing the emulator for code >>size, and not execution speed. I haven't done any benchmarks to >>see if there is a noticeable difference in speed. > > > Did you get the latest code? I have been sick with the flu and I think I > forgot to send you the latest code to play with. We should get you set up > so you can merge your changes into our tree and then we can update the > one in the X.org tree as well (Egbert Eich usually does that from our > tree). No, I didn't get the latest source (you did disapear for a while :) ). I started to work on the old source because: A - I really wanted to know if this could be done and what kind of improvements could be expected, even if the actual changes were thrown away in the end B - you said that only small bug fixes were made since this version, so I probably could diff the source I started from against the latest and do the same fixes to my latest source. One other thing, is there a simple way to test the emulator? I've been careful with the changes I did not to change the resulting behaviour of the emulator, but I can not _absolutely_ sure that I didn't break anything. It would be very good to try the emulator in a controlled environment. Anyway, I think I'll have some more time tonight, so probably tomorrow I'll have more information about the final code size. -- Paulo Marques - www.grupopie.com All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797) |