Re: [hatari-devel] Hatari debugger question

[Eero Tamminen <oak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

On lauantai 10 elokuu 2013, Nicolas Pomarède wrote:
> On 10/08/2013 18:05, Eero Tamminen wrote:
> > Would setting a variable in RAM write be too much overhead in
> > the CPU emulation code?
> 
> In the current state of the cpu emulation, it would first need some
> cleanup / merging of some code ; each time there's a memory read/write,
> it goes through several levels of indirection, blitter or dma can also
> use some "shortcuts" in the different functions, so it's not really a
> good idea to do it at the moment.

Ok. :-/


> It would make sense once we had support for "fast" ram with different
> cycle access as  this would imply to rethink the memory's organisation.
> 
> It would add an overhead, whether it's a big one or not depend on the
> power of the computer used to do the emulation  (but it would imply a
> check on each read/write to see if further debugging function should be
> called or not, so that's an overhead)

That debugging functionality overhead (SPCFLAG_DEBUGGER bit check on
every instruction) is already there, and wouldn't change.

Only additional overhead would be storing the memory access address to
internal Hatari variable in all the relevant places of the CPU emulation.


	- Eero