Viewing Issue Advanced Details
|ID||Category [?]||Severity [?]||Reproducibility||Date Submitted||Last Update|
|07684||Core||Feature||Always||Jun 11, 2020, 02:06||Jun 12, 2020, 00:39|
|Tester||Tafoid||View Status||Public||Platform||MAME (Official Binary)|
|Assigned To||Resolution||Open||OS||Windows Vista/7/8 (64-bit)|
|Version||0.221||Fixed in Version||Build|
|Fixed in Git Commit||Github Pull Request #|
|Summary||07684: DRC Cores: Game Information screen missing DRC information/DRC locked|
In instances where there is a DRC core in MAME, there is no way of knowing if -DRC or -NODRC are having any effect.
For a good period of time back in late 2013 through mid 2014, all cores which had DRC did display this fact if they were activated or not. This concept was scrapped, however, when all the cores were summarily "modernized" and all usage cases where the Game Information would show that it was employing the DRC were overlooked and not readded.
There are also some driver cases where DRC maybe be disabled by default for various reasons, but you are not allowed you to use these machines with the DRC compatible cores, even if the -DRC trigger is activated. The user should have these available to them if they wish, or if (as would be in my case) checking for breakage comparing DRC and non-DRC tests. I'm also sure there is big developer advantage, too, of allowing default off DRC to be activated with out changing source code.
I'd argue using set_force_no_drc as a function is a bit too extreme.
|Steps To Reproduce|
|Affected Sets / Systems||DRC Cores|
|There are no relationship linked to this issue.|
Jun 12, 2020, 00:38
imho force_drc should be an opt-in that disables the DRC without forcing the option for the user that otherwise want to mess with it enabled.
It's also less likely that the various DRC cores gets fixed if people have to specifically mess at build level.