On 10/09/2013 07:05 PM, Chuck McManis wrote: > On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Linge Dai <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > which allows modifying any arbitrary register. The programmers need to > explicitly enforce restrictions on what to pass to the function. Is the > API > meant to be designed this way? > > > I don't know, I didn't design it, but I approve of the API as designed.
>>> snipped lots of very good reasons for it being as is <<<< Mind you, if it could be a nice magic _compile_ time construct, that would probably be fine, but bear in mind you have to make it work for _all_ the devices, and that's decidedly non trivial. (In plain C) Sometimes though, the sheer simplicity of it is the biggest plus. There's nothing hiding anywhere. There's no magic to work out, or figure if it has a bug in it, you just know what it does, and you can get on with your life. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60134071&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ libopencm3-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libopencm3-devel
