Everything being static inline makes it hostile to these older systems which have limited RAM. Use of float makes it unlikely that you’d run it on the PlayStation, which has no FPU.
> Everything being static inline makes it hostile to these older systems which have limited RAM.
Compilers can un-inline as well. In fact, since every function is defined in the header file, the static inline annotation means very little, it's more of a hint; the functions that were not marked static inline can be inlined just as well by the compiler.
> Use of float makes it unlikely that you’d run it on the PlayStation, which has no FPU.
I think this sentence just made me realize what made the PSX graphics look so "PSX", I'm guessing all the positions/translations and similar stuff were actually not floating point which they typically are (today at least), hence the classic look of triangles/meshes kind of "jumping"? Huh...
> Everything being static inline makes it hostile to these older systems which have limited RAM
If you don't define `PICOPHYSICS_IMPLEMENTATION` then you just get prototypes and a few struct definitions. From what I could tell the static inline functions are just used as helpers by the non-static functions defined in the implementation TU. It's similar to the stb[1] implementation pattern.
Also, inlining improves code size more often than you might think. There is a lot of ceremony in a function call, and the compiler has to make pessimistic assumptions about what is trashed by the call, causing unnecessary spills and fills. Things like the simple vec3 operations here should pretty much always be made available for inlining; whether the compiler actually decides to inline them is a different story.
single-file physics for old consoles is such a neat constraint to build under. reminds me of the n64 homebrew stuff i was looking at - wonder if this actually runs on real hardware or just emulators, the psx/n64 have such tight memory limits. anyone benchmarked it on a real dev kit?
8 comments
[ 2.1 ms ] story [ 7.1 ms ] threadThe Pico in particular has enough RAM and supports floating point math.
Compilers can un-inline as well. In fact, since every function is defined in the header file, the static inline annotation means very little, it's more of a hint; the functions that were not marked static inline can be inlined just as well by the compiler.
I think this sentence just made me realize what made the PSX graphics look so "PSX", I'm guessing all the positions/translations and similar stuff were actually not floating point which they typically are (today at least), hence the classic look of triangles/meshes kind of "jumping"? Huh...
If you don't define `PICOPHYSICS_IMPLEMENTATION` then you just get prototypes and a few struct definitions. From what I could tell the static inline functions are just used as helpers by the non-static functions defined in the implementation TU. It's similar to the stb[1] implementation pattern.
Also, inlining improves code size more often than you might think. There is a lot of ceremony in a function call, and the compiler has to make pessimistic assumptions about what is trashed by the call, causing unnecessary spills and fills. Things like the simple vec3 operations here should pretty much always be made available for inlining; whether the compiler actually decides to inline them is a different story.
[1]: https://github.com/nothings/stb