RE: [Simulavr-devel] Uniform the code

[address@hidden]

On Sun Apr 12  2:05 , "Weddington, Eric"  sent:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: 
>> address@hidden 
>> [mailto:address@hidden
>> u.org] On Behalf Of address@hidden
>> Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 7:48 PM
>> To: '' simulavr-devel @ nongnu . org ''; 'Michael N . Moran'
>> Subject: Re: [Simulavr-devel] Uniform the code
>
>> Eric's comment on speed suggests a vote against pointers.
>> I haven't noticed any votes for pointers.
>
>Please note that I am agnostic when it comes to methods/algorithms; I'm not a
C++ programmer. But instead of having bickering on the list, I suggest that it 
be
solved with scientific methods: code up the different ways to do it, test each
one and see which method is the fastest. Numbers and measurement should rule the
argument.

The test shouldn't be too hard to run.
We already have an example of each.
We just need code that will run on both an atmega128 and a atmega48.
I'd be rather surprised if adding a layer of indirection speeded up the 
simulation.
The question would be whether the slowdown was significant.

Absent either a major surprise about speed or news about the benefits of 
pointers,
we should aggregate cpu parts directly.

Bickering?

--
Michael Hennebry
address@hidden
"War is only a hobby."

---- Msg sent via CableONE.net MyMail - http://www.cableone.net