Skip to content
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.

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

DSPSpy: Fix incomplete result dumps #10715

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jun 3, 2022

Conversation

Pokechu22
Copy link
Contributor

The current code expects new mail almost immediately after the last map was sent for it to be saved properly. However, I have a test program that ends up looping for 32768 iterations before it sends more mail; this resulted in an incomplete result dump. I've changed it to wait a frame between checking for mail, which solves that issue. This does slow down dumping, but the end speed matches the speed at which the UI updates the registers so this isn't a big deal (the UI waits a frame between mail normally). (Theoretically, it could take even longer for dumping to finish, so this is not a perfect solution. However, for tests that take that long to run, it would be better to save the existing results instead of re-running the test and saving that; that'd be something to do with later improvements.)

The current code expects new mail almost immediately after the last map was sent for it to be saved properly. However, I have a test program that ends up looping for 32768 iterations before it sends more mail; this resulted in an incomplete result dump. I've changed it to wait a frame between checking for mail, which solves that issue. This does slow down dumping, but the end speed matches the speed at which the UI updates the registers so this isn't a big deal (the UI waits a frame between mail normally). (Theoretically, it could take even longer for dumping to finish, so this is not a perfect solution. However, for tests that take that long to run, it would be better to save the existing results instead of re-running the test and saving that; that'd be something to do with later improvements.)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
2 participants