[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Simulavr-devel] Re: comments on documentation

From: Knut Schwichtenberg
Subject: [Simulavr-devel] Re: comments on documentation
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 11:20:36 +0200
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20080226)


thanks for your reply. I updated the file as you proposed - mostly. But there are at least three locations that need further discussion to make them readable / understandable.

Michael Hennebry wrote:
Page 4:
From the "Attention:" paragraph, I gather that the example does not work.
It really should be replaced or supplemented by one that does.
No, that is not meant. This is a general comment, meaning whenever you start simulavrxx with a command line "simulavrxx -g" it crashes. If you start it with a command line "simulavrxx -g any_AVR_program" the simulator "survives". It starts simulating "any_AVR_program" until GDB loads the proper / wanted program via GDB's file command.

reason ... runs immediately with an empty flash.  But
... fixed later.  It doesn't matter if you give the same
file on the command line and in the gdb file command.
At this point, I'm not sure how to fix it.
I'm not sure which command line is referenced.
My proposal for the next release:
It doesn't matter if the filename of the simulavrxx command line is identical to the filename of GDB file command.
The GDB downloads the file itself to the simulator.

Page 8:
I had trouble with 5.1.3 up to MAX_INT.
The first sentence wasn't meaningful to me.
I think that the next two sentences are intended to mean:
Digital Nets have potentially distinct input an output values
that represent a small number of digital states.
An AnalogNet has a "continuum" of values represented by
numbers in the range 0..MAX_INT.
That's it. Shall I take your sentences or do you have any improvements?
Is the upper bound MAX_INT or MAX_UINT?
MAX_INT as far as I remember.

The sentence with swig-I/F needs work, too, but it's getting close to noon.
No need to hurry :-). It took so long time to get here...

My proposal for the next release:
The current implementation provides no network interface to register graphical components.
Instead the swig-I/F is able to access any function of the simulator core.

After your comment I'll finish the update and send a patch.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]