Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

Update AVR code in staging #2152

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: staging
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Update AVR code in staging #2152

wants to merge 1 commit into from
+1,491 −2,490

Conversation

amaanq
Copy link
Contributor

@amaanq amaanq commented Apr 10, 2025

This PR updates the AVR code in the staging branch - it's effectively my way of saying "I've reviewed the code", but there were a lot of changes to be made, so I took it upon myself to make those changes, since #2021 is quite old and I didn't want to burden the author with dozens of comments :^).

The main highlights are:

  • Cleaned up main AVR header, there's no need for special constants on the enums, as well as having the CPU enum be a combo of board x cpu.
  • Removing the "Object" class stuff that upstream QEMU has
  • Removing unnecessary code that isn't used
  • Removed "unicorn helper" for macros - if that were to be added, it'd make more sense to do it in a PR that updates every CPU's code
  • Cleaned up the test

@wtdcode
Copy link
Member

wtdcode commented Apr 11, 2025

the history is missing and seems hard to review?

@wtdcode
Copy link
Member

wtdcode commented Apr 11, 2025

Also the author is quite active, let me ping him @glennsec

Sorry for the long stalling and we are working go get it into 2.2.0 that would be released in next 2-3 months. Any ideas or comments for this?

@amaanq
Copy link
Contributor Author

amaanq commented Apr 11, 2025

the history is missing and seems hard to review?

I based it off the staging branch - I could have it target #2021, so it's directly stacked off of that instead if that makes it easier to review. If splitting up the commits would help with reviewing too I can do that as well 🙂

@wtdcode
Copy link
Member

wtdcode commented Apr 11, 2025

the history is missing and seems hard to review?

I based it off the staging branch - I could have it target #2021, so it's directly stacked off of that instead if that makes it easier to review. If splitting up the commits would help with reviewing too I can do that as well 🙂

It's okay to not splitting for me. Just asking in case the author would like a cleaner history. Anyway nice work!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@amaanq @wtdcode