good idea, though their pseudo-code doesn't have a set format so I'm afraid that'd be hard if not impossible..PS2: I once thought about an emulator that interpreted the pseudo-code that appears in the Intel manuals! That would simplify updates a lot if ever becomes nearly perfect!.
yea plan on this..not sure how to do all of it but it's a plan..hckr83 wrote:
That's a pretty good idea, taking it a step farther
I think I would do it more as config file templates, or like in the UI be able to specify "Setup as an IBM PC" or whatever
Something like this, yes...
Another solution would be an include directive that would ask the emulator core to process some device-declaring headers that would say that the devices exist (the devices that are usually present in a Compaq Armada laptop, for example) and give a default configuration to them...
Then, and below the include directive, the user (or a specialized configurator) could modify and/or include more devices...
well what I mean, is instead of like bochs, where only the cpu is slow, I'll make it possible to slow down the whole emulator to cpu speed...hence getting rid of quite a few of the problems with timing in some old applications...Quote:
hmmm... gave me an idea for a better true, emulation
tell the devices to use my own timing functions; like have my own little timer type thing(PIT) and then to have a "slow" pc we will not only keep the instruction-per-seconds at a slower rate, but also have the timer to keep in sync with this slower rate rather than the fast rate of the host pc..kinda hard to understand, I know but I tried...(note this will defianetly be optional)
When I was writting my post, I thought about suggesting this... But I think you will have more challenges in making your emulator fast, than in making it slow!
I can't do that because I want it to be super portableUnless you plan using some state-of-the-art emulation technique, like dynamic translation or virtualization (while still using the host CPU to execute non-privileged instructions)...
I design my makefiles to basically be portable shell scripts(cept I use windows) so bah..PS: I took a glance at Open86 from SVN rev. 10 and I think you should give yourself the time to format and comment the code a bit more... Also, the makefile looks pretty strange... It is more like a shell script than a makefile (and you would avoid much overhead if it was a shell script!)...
also if your having a bit of trouble understanding my code(I like the format I use so..) you might try reading this work in progress document, http://open86.svn.sourceforge.net/viewv ... revision=9