--In my test case, only a few segments were set to readable and nothing else was set. 0x1000, which is where the PC is initialized to, certainly isn't in a writable page.
--Although I've read that these memory attributes affect the Intellivision and not the Intellicart, I'm pretty sure this has to be implemented in the Intellicart so that my Read/WriteCart functions can choose to respond / not respond depending on these attributes. I very well could be wrong.
-Hooked Read/WriteCart into Read/WriteMemory.
-Implemented memory attributes into Read/WriteCart.
--TODO: Bank-switching.
TODO: Fine address table and memory attribute / fine address checksums.
--If a future system uses this extension, the condition:
Rom[0] == 0xA8 && Rom[1] == (0xFF ^ Rom[2])
...can verify if the file is in fact an IntelliCart, though I doubt this is a permanent solution to the more underlying problem.
-Initialized the memory devices with a tentative size that ignores the unofficial ranges.
-Masked addresses to match those sizes (That's my understanding of what the memory map needs to do based on other examples).
-Added the ICart interface.
-Started the Intellicart parser; got far enough to know that the files I'm working with are not Intellicarts. ^_^
-Fixed JMP disassembly; I need to return on an invalid opcode because I was breaking out of the inner switch statement, not both that and the outer one.
-Set up the "official" memory map - see http://wiki.intellivision.us/index.php?title=Memory_Map
--Things I didn't do:
---Accessibility.
---Additional Occupied Memory Ranges.
---Addresses Available to Cartridges
---Initialize any of the byte arrays.
--Not sure which of these I need to do, but clearly the byte arrays have to be initialized somewhere to something and there's a lot of gaps in this memory map.
-Made all instructions in the executor, even implemented ones, throw exceptions. I will get rid of the exceptions as I test the instructions.
-Added instructions up to and including 0x57 to disassembly and executor.
-Implemented ADCR.
-Decoded all opcodes up to 0x23F.
TODO: Try vecna's idea of testing the instructions by running a game and implementing instructions as I need them...but first I'll need to implement loading of an Intellivision game.
-Definitions.
--Registers, Flags, TotalExecutedCycles, PendingCycles, ReadMemory, and WriteMemory.
-Execute.
--Implemented opcodes 0x001-0x027 with the exception of 0x004 and 0x005.
--It's going to be based heavily based on Imran Nazar's "GameBoy Emulation in Javascript" series. I figure it's better that I learn by emulation (Har har) instead of spending more time reading references than programming.
--Finished the memory management (Part 2).
--adelikat:
---Do I implement the required functions for IEmulator and IVideoProvider now, do it later, or is this something you or zeromus would do (Like for the API)?
---At what point should we have the emulator actually use this core instead of zeromus'? As terrible as he says his is, this one doesn't do anything yet. Still, I need some mechanism of testing it.
-Made it so that the log only opens when logging is true and that the file closes upon destruction.
--Still, BizHawk says that it can't open the file again when I load a game again. This is because the emulator class gets recreated without deleting the original one every time you load a game.
---adelikat convinced me not to care about this.
-Fixed the initial state of the GB CPU:
--It was setting AF to 0x01, not A. This is effectively setting F to 0x01, which gets overwritten later anyway.
--Two BIOS flags were used in different places; merging them gets the PC to start in the right place.
-By fixing the initial state, most of the log now matches up.
--The only differences are the VBA has some repeated records (Where all of the registers, including PC, are the same as the previous record) whereas BizHawk doesn't.
--This very well might be an issue with how I'm logging it
--Alternatively, it could be some kind of lagging mechanism.
--I'm not sure which version is even correct...VBA is far from accruate.
--All in all, considering that the vast majority of the diff comes out as the same, I think I fixed the biggest CPU related bug. Will investigate more later.
--Gets worse as the scale increases.
--For x3, the box doesn't increase size, but the box still changes position. I think there might be a difference between the TargetZoomFactor and the actual screen size, so perhaps we should tie this to something else.
-Working on very small optimizations to the NES PPU with CorruptedSyntax...this is more fun, so we'll do this first.
--Eliminated an entire loop.
--Branched to two loops instead of branching for every iteration in one loop.
--Got rid of some redundant instructions using temporary variables.
--This may be completely premature, but I seem to have gained a few FPS from doing this. For me, I get 38-39 FPS where I'd previously get 33-34.
adelikat