On Wed Sep 30 0:53 , "Weddington, Eric" sent:
I don't care how the project progresses, meaning that I don't have any say in
architecture or direction, or how a particular feature should be implemented. My
only personal concern is that it continues to build for, and run on, Windows
either Cygwin or MinGW (preferrably MinGW). I think that no one wants that the
project go "backwards", meaning that it continues to build on the same
platforms,
that there aren't any serious regressions. Yes, I understand that there is very
little testing in place to ensure this, so I have to trust that the developers
keep this in mind when working on this project.
Portability issues shouldn't be too much of a problem.
The sockets and the guis are the most likely prospects.
Most of the rest is just a matter of doing the math.
This is why I'm more than happy to add people to the project as developers or
admins, as long as these overarching goals are kept in mind. I don't think that
consensus would be that hard to reach in getting features added.
One of the features I would like to add is regression tests for IN and OUT.
They will need to be cpu-dependent.
They will access the port registers.
Do the savannah code and the Onno code use
the same regression test organization?
IIRC the Onno code uses a different port register
access syntax from the savannah code.
If so, I'd like a discussion about whether
to commit it to the savannah code.
--
Michael Hennebry
address@hidden
"War is only a hobby."
---- Msg sent via CableONE.net MyMail - http://www.cableone.net