What is this?
A GB emulator that aims to not suck so bad.
What do you mean "not suck so bad"?
Well, most Gameboy emulators suck horribly:
- Most have terrible compatibility (there are exceptions of course)
- They're riced in wrong/bad ways or use invalid/outdated assumptions
- They're horrible on the inside and impossible to maintain and fix
- There are very few pure C emulators that aren't crap
- Lack of good linking support (none of them get this right)
WTF is up with the name?
Our emulator's a herm. Deal with it.
Who made this?
The authors are, in alphabetical order:
They've done as follows:
- awilfox - CPU core, serial, timer, some graphics, Windows frontend, initial MBC implementation, memory mapper
- Elizafox - a lot of the graphics, CPU flags compliance, interrupts, SDL/caca frontends, frontend framework, debugging/instrumenting doodads, save files, debugging
- GreaseMonkey - misc. fixes, optimisations, frontend testing, accuracy fixes
You can find us on IRC at irc.interlinked.me in #supergameherm. Those who act like they're 12 will be promptly given a boot to the head. All others are welcome.
What is it written in?
It's written in a subset of C11 (alternatively, a superset of C99).
The major features we use in C11 are anonymous structs and unions. Most sensible compilers have supported these as extensions for many years now, so it should not be any trouble. Systems where they do not work are probably too slow to run SuperGameHerm, anyway.
What systems does this run on?
Compilers we have tested SuperGameHerm with (others may or may not work, your mileage may vary):
Platforms we have tested SuperGameHerm with:
- Linux ~3.13 kernel (x86, amd64, armv6l and PowerPC)
- FreeBSD 10 (i386 and amd64)
- Windows NT 4 (x86, but we've seen snails run faster)
- Windows 7 (x64)
- Windows 10 (x64)
- NetBSD 6 (i386)
- OpenBSD 5.6 (amd64)
Currently supported frontends (they work wherever the given frontends work):
Please report to us if your platform doesn't work, or your favourite frontend isn't supported! If you want to write one yourself, look at the null pseudo- frontend.
Technical portability notes
Note we rely on union padding assumptions (e.g., two uint8_t's equal a uint16_t with no padding, period) that hold up with standard C, but are technically undefined behaviour in C++. This technique is used in the CPU core and the LCD controller. This should be okay on all of the tested compilers and systems. If it breaks on your platform, let us know.
Some unaligned data accesses may happen in the code (we've tried to weed out most of the problems). If you get a bus error or similar, you've run into this problem. Let us know and we'll try to fix it. Note that all should be well on x86, amd64, PowerPC, and ARM; these platforms don't care about alignment as much.
We use restrict to ensure the compiler knows we don't alias certain pointers, which causes it to generate better code. A huge speedup is possible when the compiler is apprised of this (up to 3x faster, surprisingly).
You should write this in C++!
No, we will not write it in C++. No, C++ will not make the code go any faster, no matter what your CS101 professor with a degree in History told you, or what some person on the Internet told you.
The overhead of classes is not worth the trouble, and the use of complex data structures in supergameherm is relatively limited - not to mention the overhead of v-tables, RTTI, exceptions, the bloat that templates and the STL cause for little gain (see also: the use of complex data structures in supergameherm is relatively limited), and the lack of things such as restrict qualifiers.
With this in mind, although supergameherm is written in a subset of C11 (or a superset of C99, depending on your perspective), any C++ compiler worth anything should be able to compile supergameherm. We aim to avoid conflicts with C++ identifiers in our code to ensure compatibility with older MSVC.
Does this work as a practical emulator?
Depends. Sound support is incomplete, and graphics support is rough around the edges. Some games aren't really playable yet. We're working on it.
If all you want is Pokémon, Tetris, and Super Mario Land (and nothing any more complex than that), it will likely work with minimal problems.
Interestingly, we do pass all of Blargg's CPU tests. Many emulators can't manage to do that. :)
Why does it (X, Y, Z)? Why /doesn't/ it (A, B, C)?
Because it's still being worked on.
Bugs that involve "you should/shouldn't do X and Y and Z" without any justification will be closed without comment.
How fast is it?
It presently runs at approximately 8x Gameboy speed on Linux and FreeBSD on most modern systems (basically any i7 or newer).
We are aiming for native speed on at least a Pentium III or newer. Use a different emulator if you care about older machines.
It crashed/segfaulted/broke my system/skinned my cat/pooed on the floor!
Then report an issue! But first, read this.