In message <20210823203000.GE31179@chiark.greenend.org.uk> you wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 02:07:29PM +0100, A Rawnsley wrote:
>>
>> I just wanted to post a "thankyou" to Theo for such an excellent and
>> researched email. Really appreciated.
> Hi Andrew,
> Some further thoughts below...
>> Personally I always felt that the evolution of a virtual system (be it
>> VRPC, RPCemu or something else) into a system where you could control both
>> sides of the emulation equation (the virtual hardware presented *and* the
>> open source OS/HAL) offered perhaps the most interesting future direction
>> for such products, but perhaps independent of their current incarnations.
> I agree, there are plenty of interesting things involving putting layers
> underneath RISC OS.
There is even a name for this: paravirtualisation.
>> Incidentally, if anyone wanted to propose a bill-of-work for any of the
>> challenges Theo raises, ROD would give serious consideration to funding
>> them. I do not see why complex work needs to be necessarily done for
>> free. No promises, though - I am answerable to the rest of the board on
>> financial commitments, and we're a democracy.
> This is hard to judge because you don't know what the next issue is going to
> be until you fix the previous one. But addressing the timer issue is
> a step that's useful across the many platforms on which RISC OS runs.
> This is Jeffrey's current state of play, where he's asking for help:
> https://www.riscosopen.org/forum/forums/3/topics/11109?page=3#posts-123553
> It could be worth looking for someone to pick up that work.
> Alternatively QEMU could be hacked up to bypass the issue in the short
> term, at least to see what other problems lie beyond. How much it's worth
> maintaining a fork of QEMU, or trying to merge changes into mainline, is up
> for discussion.
I think there are two ways to do this:
1/ Adapt RISC OS to QEMU. Problem: since QEMU is mainly a Linux beast and
that we already have RISC OS on Linux, it could be see as some duplicate
effort (at least on the ARM side). IMHO, it would be better to put the
effort on RISC OS on Linux, as it's a very good way to support any ARM
board.
2/ Make RPCEMu and RISC OS 5 going closer. Would it possible to have a new
hardware type (Pheobe II?) with more possibilities, virtual hardware more
easy to emulate and a RISC OS version for it? I would certainly invest
some money on this specific project as it would give me an alternative way
to distribute some of my software.
It would be nice too to finish the RISC OS port of RPCEmu. For now, the
keyboard does not work... but I suspect the patches made for macOS could
give some clues. a JIT would be needed too (and could be useful for the
Raspberry Pi OS version). I've already said I could fund part (if not all)
of this project.
David
_______________________________________________
RPCEmu mailing list
RPCEmu@riscos.info
http://www.riscos.info/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rpcemu
No comments:
Post a Comment