* Implemented fatal:u properly
fatal:u now is properly implemented with all the ipc cmds. Error reports/Crash reports are also now implemented for fatal:u. Crash reports save to yuzu/logs/crash_reports/
The register dump is currently known as sysmodules send all zeros. If there are any non zero values for the "registers" or the unknown values, let me know!
* Fatal:U fixups
* Made fatal:u execution break more clear
* Fatal fixups
* Stubbed IRS
Currently we have no ideal way of implementing IRS. For the time being we should have the functions stubbed until we come up with a way to emulate IRS properly.
* Added IRS to logging backend
* Forward declared shared memory for irs
* Added glObjectLabels for renderdoc for textures and shader programs
* Changed hardcoded "Texture" name to reflect the texture type instead
* Removed string initialize
This isn't used anywhere within the header, so we can remove it, along
with the include that was previously necessary. This also uncovers an
indirect include in the cpp file for the assertion macros.
This was very likely intended to be a logical OR based off the
conditioning and testing of inversion in one case.
Even if this was intentional, this is the kind of non-obvious thing one
should be clarifying with a comment.
Even though setting this value to 3 is more correct. We break more games than we fix due to missing implementations. We should keep this as 0 for the time being
The owning process of a thread is required to exist before the thread,
so we can enforce this API-wise by using a reference. We can also avoid
the reliance on the system instance by using that parameter to access
the page table that needs to be set.
Qt provides an overload of tr() that operates on quantities in relation
to pluralization. This also allows the translation to adapt based on the
target language rules better.
For example, the previous code would result in an incorrect translation
for the French language (which doesn't use the pluralized version of
"result" in the case of a total of zero. While in English it's
correct to use the pluralized version of "result", that is, "results"
---
For example:
English: "0 results"
French: "0 résultat" (uses the singular form)
In French, the noun being counted is singular if the quantity is 0 or 1.
In English, on the other hand, if the noun being counted has a quantity
of 0 or N > 1, then the noun is pluralized.
---
For another example in a language that has different counting methods
than the above, consider English and Irish. Irish has a special form of
of a grammatical number called a dual. Which alters how a word is
written when N of something is 2. This won't appear in this case with a
direct number "2", but it would change if we ever used "Two" to refer to
two of something. For example:
English: "Zero results"
Irish: "Toradh ar bith"
English: "One result"
Irish: "Toradh amháin"
English: "Two results"
Irish: "Dhá thorthaí" <- Dual case
Which is an important distinction to make between singular and plural,
because in other situations, "two" on its own would be written as "dó"
in Irish. There's also a few other cases where the order the words are
placed *and* whether or not the plural or singular variant of the word
is used *and* whether or not the word is placed after or between a set
of numbers can vary. Counting in Irish also differs depending on whether or not
you're counting things (like above) or counting people, in which case an
entirely different set of numbers are used.
It's not important for this case, but it's provided as an example as to why one
should never assume the placement of values in text will be like that of
English or other languages. Some languages have very different ways to
represent counting, and breaking up the translated string like this
isn't advisable because it makes it extremely difficult to get right
depending on what language a translator is translating text into due to
the ambiguity of the strings being presented for translation.
In this case a translator would see three fragmented strings on
Transifex (and not necessarily grouped beside one another, but even
then, it would still be annoying to decipher):
- "of"
- "result"
- "results"
There is no way a translator is going to know what those sets of words
are actually used for unless they look at the code to see what is being
done with them (which they shouldn't have to do).
