On Tuesday 22 September 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote: > I'm not keen on adding dependency on some wonderful > bit vector utilities...
As opposed depending on some not-so-wonderful ones, like we do today? :) Regardless of how things change, change is needed. That's at the level of some basic *models* ... and I think it's only sensible to notice systems that do not have the flaws of the current interface. > The first thing that I'd like to see fixed is for the jtag API > to use 32 bit words instead of byte words. That would > make the code less awkward. I'd say "unsigned long" since that wouldn't require us to pessimize 64-bit systems; and on 32-bit ones it'd be the same as explicit spec of 32-bits. Either way, that seems to be the necessary initial change. Being able to change later to "one field of N bits" rather than today's "M fields of ((N+31)/32) bits" will simplify a bunch of code too ... but that can wait a bit. > On the other hand, I just > can't work up the enthusiasm to throw that much testing > overboard by making a sweeping change :-) > > Probably better to do this earlier rather than later though... Seems like not-for-0.3 ... - Dave _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
