Update to v101r14 release.
byuu says:
Changelog:
- rewrote the Z80 core to properly handle 0xDD (IX0 and 0xFD (IY)
prefixes
- added Processor::Z80::Bus as a new type of abstraction
- all of the instructions implemented have their proper T-cycle counts
now
- added nall/certificates for my public keys
The goal of `Processor::Z80::Bus` is to simulate the opcode fetches being
2-read + 2-wait states; operand+regular reads/writes being 3-read. For
now, this puts the cycle counts inside the CPU core. At the moment, I
can't think of any CPU core where this wouldn't be appropriate. But it's
certainly possible that such a case exists. So this may not be the
perfect solution.
The reason for having it be a subclass of Processor::Z80 instead of
virtual functions for the MasterSystem::CPU core to define is due to
naming conflicts. I wanted the core to say `in(addr)` and have it take
the four clocks. But I also wanted a version of the function that didn't
consume time when called. One way to do that would be for the core to
call `Z80::in(addr)`, which then calls the regular `in(addr)` that goes to
`MasterSystem::CPU::in(addr)`. But I don't want to put the `Z80::`
prefix on all of the opcodes. Very easy to forget it, and then end up not
consuming any time. Another is to use uglier names in the
`MasterSystem::CPU` core, like `read_`, `write_`, `in_`, `out_`, etc. But,
yuck.
So ... yeah, this is an experiment. We'll see how it goes.
2016-09-03 11:26:04 +00:00
|
|
|
//legend:
|
|
|
|
// a = r.a
|
|
|
|
// e = relative operand
|
|
|
|
// in = (operand)
|
2016-09-04 13:51:27 +00:00
|
|
|
// inn = (operand-word)
|
Update to v101r14 release.
byuu says:
Changelog:
- rewrote the Z80 core to properly handle 0xDD (IX0 and 0xFD (IY)
prefixes
- added Processor::Z80::Bus as a new type of abstraction
- all of the instructions implemented have their proper T-cycle counts
now
- added nall/certificates for my public keys
The goal of `Processor::Z80::Bus` is to simulate the opcode fetches being
2-read + 2-wait states; operand+regular reads/writes being 3-read. For
now, this puts the cycle counts inside the CPU core. At the moment, I
can't think of any CPU core where this wouldn't be appropriate. But it's
certainly possible that such a case exists. So this may not be the
perfect solution.
The reason for having it be a subclass of Processor::Z80 instead of
virtual functions for the MasterSystem::CPU core to define is due to
naming conflicts. I wanted the core to say `in(addr)` and have it take
the four clocks. But I also wanted a version of the function that didn't
consume time when called. One way to do that would be for the core to
call `Z80::in(addr)`, which then calls the regular `in(addr)` that goes to
`MasterSystem::CPU::in(addr)`. But I don't want to put the `Z80::`
prefix on all of the opcodes. Very easy to forget it, and then end up not
consuming any time. Another is to use uglier names in the
`MasterSystem::CPU` core, like `read_`, `write_`, `in_`, `out_`, etc. But,
yuck.
So ... yeah, this is an experiment. We'll see how it goes.
2016-09-03 11:26:04 +00:00
|
|
|
// irr = (register-word)
|
|
|
|
// o = opcode bits
|
|
|
|
// n = operand
|
|
|
|
// nn = operand-word
|
|
|
|
// r = register
|
|
|
|
|
2016-08-27 04:48:21 +00:00
|
|
|
auto Z80::CP(uint8 x) -> void {
|
Update to v101r14 release.
byuu says:
Changelog:
- rewrote the Z80 core to properly handle 0xDD (IX0 and 0xFD (IY)
prefixes
- added Processor::Z80::Bus as a new type of abstraction
- all of the instructions implemented have their proper T-cycle counts
now
- added nall/certificates for my public keys
The goal of `Processor::Z80::Bus` is to simulate the opcode fetches being
2-read + 2-wait states; operand+regular reads/writes being 3-read. For
now, this puts the cycle counts inside the CPU core. At the moment, I
can't think of any CPU core where this wouldn't be appropriate. But it's
certainly possible that such a case exists. So this may not be the
perfect solution.
The reason for having it be a subclass of Processor::Z80 instead of
virtual functions for the MasterSystem::CPU core to define is due to
naming conflicts. I wanted the core to say `in(addr)` and have it take
the four clocks. But I also wanted a version of the function that didn't
consume time when called. One way to do that would be for the core to
call `Z80::in(addr)`, which then calls the regular `in(addr)` that goes to
`MasterSystem::CPU::in(addr)`. But I don't want to put the `Z80::`
prefix on all of the opcodes. Very easy to forget it, and then end up not
consuming any time. Another is to use uglier names in the
`MasterSystem::CPU` core, like `read_`, `write_`, `in_`, `out_`, etc. But,
yuck.
So ... yeah, this is an experiment. We'll see how it goes.
2016-09-03 11:26:04 +00:00
|
|
|
uint9 y = r.a - x;
|
2016-08-27 04:48:21 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Update to v101r14 release.
byuu says:
Changelog:
- rewrote the Z80 core to properly handle 0xDD (IX0 and 0xFD (IY)
prefixes
- added Processor::Z80::Bus as a new type of abstraction
- all of the instructions implemented have their proper T-cycle counts
now
- added nall/certificates for my public keys
The goal of `Processor::Z80::Bus` is to simulate the opcode fetches being
2-read + 2-wait states; operand+regular reads/writes being 3-read. For
now, this puts the cycle counts inside the CPU core. At the moment, I
can't think of any CPU core where this wouldn't be appropriate. But it's
certainly possible that such a case exists. So this may not be the
perfect solution.
The reason for having it be a subclass of Processor::Z80 instead of
virtual functions for the MasterSystem::CPU core to define is due to
naming conflicts. I wanted the core to say `in(addr)` and have it take
the four clocks. But I also wanted a version of the function that didn't
consume time when called. One way to do that would be for the core to
call `Z80::in(addr)`, which then calls the regular `in(addr)` that goes to
`MasterSystem::CPU::in(addr)`. But I don't want to put the `Z80::`
prefix on all of the opcodes. Very easy to forget it, and then end up not
consuming any time. Another is to use uglier names in the
`MasterSystem::CPU` core, like `read_`, `write_`, `in_`, `out_`, etc. But,
yuck.
So ... yeah, this is an experiment. We'll see how it goes.
2016-09-03 11:26:04 +00:00
|
|
|
r.p.c = y.bit(8);
|
2016-08-27 04:48:21 +00:00
|
|
|
r.p.n = 1;
|
|
|
|
r.p.v = (r.a ^ x) & (r.a ^ y) & 0x80;
|
Update to v101r14 release.
byuu says:
Changelog:
- rewrote the Z80 core to properly handle 0xDD (IX0 and 0xFD (IY)
prefixes
- added Processor::Z80::Bus as a new type of abstraction
- all of the instructions implemented have their proper T-cycle counts
now
- added nall/certificates for my public keys
The goal of `Processor::Z80::Bus` is to simulate the opcode fetches being
2-read + 2-wait states; operand+regular reads/writes being 3-read. For
now, this puts the cycle counts inside the CPU core. At the moment, I
can't think of any CPU core where this wouldn't be appropriate. But it's
certainly possible that such a case exists. So this may not be the
perfect solution.
The reason for having it be a subclass of Processor::Z80 instead of
virtual functions for the MasterSystem::CPU core to define is due to
naming conflicts. I wanted the core to say `in(addr)` and have it take
the four clocks. But I also wanted a version of the function that didn't
consume time when called. One way to do that would be for the core to
call `Z80::in(addr)`, which then calls the regular `in(addr)` that goes to
`MasterSystem::CPU::in(addr)`. But I don't want to put the `Z80::`
prefix on all of the opcodes. Very easy to forget it, and then end up not
consuming any time. Another is to use uglier names in the
`MasterSystem::CPU` core, like `read_`, `write_`, `in_`, `out_`, etc. But,
yuck.
So ... yeah, this is an experiment. We'll see how it goes.
2016-09-03 11:26:04 +00:00
|
|
|
r.p.x = y.bit(3);
|
2016-08-27 04:48:21 +00:00
|
|
|
r.p.h = (r.a ^ y ^ x) & 0x10;
|
Update to v101r14 release.
byuu says:
Changelog:
- rewrote the Z80 core to properly handle 0xDD (IX0 and 0xFD (IY)
prefixes
- added Processor::Z80::Bus as a new type of abstraction
- all of the instructions implemented have their proper T-cycle counts
now
- added nall/certificates for my public keys
The goal of `Processor::Z80::Bus` is to simulate the opcode fetches being
2-read + 2-wait states; operand+regular reads/writes being 3-read. For
now, this puts the cycle counts inside the CPU core. At the moment, I
can't think of any CPU core where this wouldn't be appropriate. But it's
certainly possible that such a case exists. So this may not be the
perfect solution.
The reason for having it be a subclass of Processor::Z80 instead of
virtual functions for the MasterSystem::CPU core to define is due to
naming conflicts. I wanted the core to say `in(addr)` and have it take
the four clocks. But I also wanted a version of the function that didn't
consume time when called. One way to do that would be for the core to
call `Z80::in(addr)`, which then calls the regular `in(addr)` that goes to
`MasterSystem::CPU::in(addr)`. But I don't want to put the `Z80::`
prefix on all of the opcodes. Very easy to forget it, and then end up not
consuming any time. Another is to use uglier names in the
`MasterSystem::CPU` core, like `read_`, `write_`, `in_`, `out_`, etc. But,
yuck.
So ... yeah, this is an experiment. We'll see how it goes.
2016-09-03 11:26:04 +00:00
|
|
|
r.p.y = y.bit(5);
|
|
|
|
r.p.z = (uint8)y == 0;
|
|
|
|
r.p.s = y.bit(7);
|
2016-08-27 04:48:21 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2016-09-04 13:51:27 +00:00
|
|
|
auto Z80::instructionCP_irr(uint16& x) -> void {
|
|
|
|
auto addr = displace(x);
|
|
|
|
CP(read(addr));
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2016-08-27 04:48:21 +00:00
|
|
|
auto Z80::instructionCP_n() -> void {
|
Update to v101r14 release.
byuu says:
Changelog:
- rewrote the Z80 core to properly handle 0xDD (IX0 and 0xFD (IY)
prefixes
- added Processor::Z80::Bus as a new type of abstraction
- all of the instructions implemented have their proper T-cycle counts
now
- added nall/certificates for my public keys
The goal of `Processor::Z80::Bus` is to simulate the opcode fetches being
2-read + 2-wait states; operand+regular reads/writes being 3-read. For
now, this puts the cycle counts inside the CPU core. At the moment, I
can't think of any CPU core where this wouldn't be appropriate. But it's
certainly possible that such a case exists. So this may not be the
perfect solution.
The reason for having it be a subclass of Processor::Z80 instead of
virtual functions for the MasterSystem::CPU core to define is due to
naming conflicts. I wanted the core to say `in(addr)` and have it take
the four clocks. But I also wanted a version of the function that didn't
consume time when called. One way to do that would be for the core to
call `Z80::in(addr)`, which then calls the regular `in(addr)` that goes to
`MasterSystem::CPU::in(addr)`. But I don't want to put the `Z80::`
prefix on all of the opcodes. Very easy to forget it, and then end up not
consuming any time. Another is to use uglier names in the
`MasterSystem::CPU` core, like `read_`, `write_`, `in_`, `out_`, etc. But,
yuck.
So ... yeah, this is an experiment. We'll see how it goes.
2016-09-03 11:26:04 +00:00
|
|
|
CP(operand());
|
2016-08-27 04:48:21 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2016-09-04 13:51:27 +00:00
|
|
|
auto Z80::instructionCP_r(uint8& x) -> void {
|
|
|
|
CP(x);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2016-08-19 14:11:26 +00:00
|
|
|
auto Z80::instructionDI() -> void {
|
Update to v101r14 release.
byuu says:
Changelog:
- rewrote the Z80 core to properly handle 0xDD (IX0 and 0xFD (IY)
prefixes
- added Processor::Z80::Bus as a new type of abstraction
- all of the instructions implemented have their proper T-cycle counts
now
- added nall/certificates for my public keys
The goal of `Processor::Z80::Bus` is to simulate the opcode fetches being
2-read + 2-wait states; operand+regular reads/writes being 3-read. For
now, this puts the cycle counts inside the CPU core. At the moment, I
can't think of any CPU core where this wouldn't be appropriate. But it's
certainly possible that such a case exists. So this may not be the
perfect solution.
The reason for having it be a subclass of Processor::Z80 instead of
virtual functions for the MasterSystem::CPU core to define is due to
naming conflicts. I wanted the core to say `in(addr)` and have it take
the four clocks. But I also wanted a version of the function that didn't
consume time when called. One way to do that would be for the core to
call `Z80::in(addr)`, which then calls the regular `in(addr)` that goes to
`MasterSystem::CPU::in(addr)`. But I don't want to put the `Z80::`
prefix on all of the opcodes. Very easy to forget it, and then end up not
consuming any time. Another is to use uglier names in the
`MasterSystem::CPU` core, like `read_`, `write_`, `in_`, `out_`, etc. But,
yuck.
So ... yeah, this is an experiment. We'll see how it goes.
2016-09-03 11:26:04 +00:00
|
|
|
r.iff1 = 0;
|
|
|
|
r.iff2 = 0;
|
2016-08-27 04:48:21 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Update to v101r14 release.
byuu says:
Changelog:
- rewrote the Z80 core to properly handle 0xDD (IX0 and 0xFD (IY)
prefixes
- added Processor::Z80::Bus as a new type of abstraction
- all of the instructions implemented have their proper T-cycle counts
now
- added nall/certificates for my public keys
The goal of `Processor::Z80::Bus` is to simulate the opcode fetches being
2-read + 2-wait states; operand+regular reads/writes being 3-read. For
now, this puts the cycle counts inside the CPU core. At the moment, I
can't think of any CPU core where this wouldn't be appropriate. But it's
certainly possible that such a case exists. So this may not be the
perfect solution.
The reason for having it be a subclass of Processor::Z80 instead of
virtual functions for the MasterSystem::CPU core to define is due to
naming conflicts. I wanted the core to say `in(addr)` and have it take
the four clocks. But I also wanted a version of the function that didn't
consume time when called. One way to do that would be for the core to
call `Z80::in(addr)`, which then calls the regular `in(addr)` that goes to
`MasterSystem::CPU::in(addr)`. But I don't want to put the `Z80::`
prefix on all of the opcodes. Very easy to forget it, and then end up not
consuming any time. Another is to use uglier names in the
`MasterSystem::CPU` core, like `read_`, `write_`, `in_`, `out_`, etc. But,
yuck.
So ... yeah, this is an experiment. We'll see how it goes.
2016-09-03 11:26:04 +00:00
|
|
|
auto Z80::instructionEI() -> void {
|
|
|
|
r.iff1 = 1;
|
|
|
|
r.iff2 = 1;
|
2016-08-27 04:48:21 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Update to v101r14 release.
byuu says:
Changelog:
- rewrote the Z80 core to properly handle 0xDD (IX0 and 0xFD (IY)
prefixes
- added Processor::Z80::Bus as a new type of abstraction
- all of the instructions implemented have their proper T-cycle counts
now
- added nall/certificates for my public keys
The goal of `Processor::Z80::Bus` is to simulate the opcode fetches being
2-read + 2-wait states; operand+regular reads/writes being 3-read. For
now, this puts the cycle counts inside the CPU core. At the moment, I
can't think of any CPU core where this wouldn't be appropriate. But it's
certainly possible that such a case exists. So this may not be the
perfect solution.
The reason for having it be a subclass of Processor::Z80 instead of
virtual functions for the MasterSystem::CPU core to define is due to
naming conflicts. I wanted the core to say `in(addr)` and have it take
the four clocks. But I also wanted a version of the function that didn't
consume time when called. One way to do that would be for the core to
call `Z80::in(addr)`, which then calls the regular `in(addr)` that goes to
`MasterSystem::CPU::in(addr)`. But I don't want to put the `Z80::`
prefix on all of the opcodes. Very easy to forget it, and then end up not
consuming any time. Another is to use uglier names in the
`MasterSystem::CPU` core, like `read_`, `write_`, `in_`, `out_`, etc. But,
yuck.
So ... yeah, this is an experiment. We'll see how it goes.
2016-09-03 11:26:04 +00:00
|
|
|
auto Z80::instructionIM_o(uint2 code) -> void {
|
|
|
|
wait(4);
|
|
|
|
r.im = code;
|
2016-08-27 04:48:21 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Update to v101r14 release.
byuu says:
Changelog:
- rewrote the Z80 core to properly handle 0xDD (IX0 and 0xFD (IY)
prefixes
- added Processor::Z80::Bus as a new type of abstraction
- all of the instructions implemented have their proper T-cycle counts
now
- added nall/certificates for my public keys
The goal of `Processor::Z80::Bus` is to simulate the opcode fetches being
2-read + 2-wait states; operand+regular reads/writes being 3-read. For
now, this puts the cycle counts inside the CPU core. At the moment, I
can't think of any CPU core where this wouldn't be appropriate. But it's
certainly possible that such a case exists. So this may not be the
perfect solution.
The reason for having it be a subclass of Processor::Z80 instead of
virtual functions for the MasterSystem::CPU core to define is due to
naming conflicts. I wanted the core to say `in(addr)` and have it take
the four clocks. But I also wanted a version of the function that didn't
consume time when called. One way to do that would be for the core to
call `Z80::in(addr)`, which then calls the regular `in(addr)` that goes to
`MasterSystem::CPU::in(addr)`. But I don't want to put the `Z80::`
prefix on all of the opcodes. Very easy to forget it, and then end up not
consuming any time. Another is to use uglier names in the
`MasterSystem::CPU` core, like `read_`, `write_`, `in_`, `out_`, etc. But,
yuck.
So ... yeah, this is an experiment. We'll see how it goes.
2016-09-03 11:26:04 +00:00
|
|
|
auto Z80::instructionIN_a_in() -> void {
|
|
|
|
r.a = in(operand());
|
2016-08-27 04:48:21 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
auto Z80::instructionJP_c_nn(bool c) -> void {
|
Update to v101r14 release.
byuu says:
Changelog:
- rewrote the Z80 core to properly handle 0xDD (IX0 and 0xFD (IY)
prefixes
- added Processor::Z80::Bus as a new type of abstraction
- all of the instructions implemented have their proper T-cycle counts
now
- added nall/certificates for my public keys
The goal of `Processor::Z80::Bus` is to simulate the opcode fetches being
2-read + 2-wait states; operand+regular reads/writes being 3-read. For
now, this puts the cycle counts inside the CPU core. At the moment, I
can't think of any CPU core where this wouldn't be appropriate. But it's
certainly possible that such a case exists. So this may not be the
perfect solution.
The reason for having it be a subclass of Processor::Z80 instead of
virtual functions for the MasterSystem::CPU core to define is due to
naming conflicts. I wanted the core to say `in(addr)` and have it take
the four clocks. But I also wanted a version of the function that didn't
consume time when called. One way to do that would be for the core to
call `Z80::in(addr)`, which then calls the regular `in(addr)` that goes to
`MasterSystem::CPU::in(addr)`. But I don't want to put the `Z80::`
prefix on all of the opcodes. Very easy to forget it, and then end up not
consuming any time. Another is to use uglier names in the
`MasterSystem::CPU` core, like `read_`, `write_`, `in_`, `out_`, etc. But,
yuck.
So ... yeah, this is an experiment. We'll see how it goes.
2016-09-03 11:26:04 +00:00
|
|
|
auto lo = operand();
|
|
|
|
auto hi = operand();
|
2016-08-27 04:48:21 +00:00
|
|
|
if(c) r.pc = hi << 8 | lo << 0;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Update to v101r14 release.
byuu says:
Changelog:
- rewrote the Z80 core to properly handle 0xDD (IX0 and 0xFD (IY)
prefixes
- added Processor::Z80::Bus as a new type of abstraction
- all of the instructions implemented have their proper T-cycle counts
now
- added nall/certificates for my public keys
The goal of `Processor::Z80::Bus` is to simulate the opcode fetches being
2-read + 2-wait states; operand+regular reads/writes being 3-read. For
now, this puts the cycle counts inside the CPU core. At the moment, I
can't think of any CPU core where this wouldn't be appropriate. But it's
certainly possible that such a case exists. So this may not be the
perfect solution.
The reason for having it be a subclass of Processor::Z80 instead of
virtual functions for the MasterSystem::CPU core to define is due to
naming conflicts. I wanted the core to say `in(addr)` and have it take
the four clocks. But I also wanted a version of the function that didn't
consume time when called. One way to do that would be for the core to
call `Z80::in(addr)`, which then calls the regular `in(addr)` that goes to
`MasterSystem::CPU::in(addr)`. But I don't want to put the `Z80::`
prefix on all of the opcodes. Very easy to forget it, and then end up not
consuming any time. Another is to use uglier names in the
`MasterSystem::CPU` core, like `read_`, `write_`, `in_`, `out_`, etc. But,
yuck.
So ... yeah, this is an experiment. We'll see how it goes.
2016-09-03 11:26:04 +00:00
|
|
|
auto Z80::instructionJR_c_e(bool c) -> void {
|
|
|
|
auto e = operand();
|
|
|
|
if(!c) return;
|
|
|
|
wait(5);
|
|
|
|
r.pc += (int8)e;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2016-09-04 13:51:27 +00:00
|
|
|
auto Z80::instructionLD_inn_a() -> void {
|
|
|
|
auto lo = operand();
|
|
|
|
auto hi = operand();
|
|
|
|
write(hi << 8 | lo << 0, r.a);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
auto Z80::instructionLD_irr_n(uint16& x) -> void {
|
|
|
|
auto addr = displace(x);
|
|
|
|
write(addr, operand());
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
auto Z80::instructionLD_irr_r(uint16& x, uint8& y) -> void {
|
|
|
|
auto addr = displace(x);
|
|
|
|
write(addr, y);
|
2016-08-27 04:48:21 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2016-09-04 13:51:27 +00:00
|
|
|
auto Z80::instructionLD_r_n(uint8& x) -> void {
|
Update to v101r14 release.
byuu says:
Changelog:
- rewrote the Z80 core to properly handle 0xDD (IX0 and 0xFD (IY)
prefixes
- added Processor::Z80::Bus as a new type of abstraction
- all of the instructions implemented have their proper T-cycle counts
now
- added nall/certificates for my public keys
The goal of `Processor::Z80::Bus` is to simulate the opcode fetches being
2-read + 2-wait states; operand+regular reads/writes being 3-read. For
now, this puts the cycle counts inside the CPU core. At the moment, I
can't think of any CPU core where this wouldn't be appropriate. But it's
certainly possible that such a case exists. So this may not be the
perfect solution.
The reason for having it be a subclass of Processor::Z80 instead of
virtual functions for the MasterSystem::CPU core to define is due to
naming conflicts. I wanted the core to say `in(addr)` and have it take
the four clocks. But I also wanted a version of the function that didn't
consume time when called. One way to do that would be for the core to
call `Z80::in(addr)`, which then calls the regular `in(addr)` that goes to
`MasterSystem::CPU::in(addr)`. But I don't want to put the `Z80::`
prefix on all of the opcodes. Very easy to forget it, and then end up not
consuming any time. Another is to use uglier names in the
`MasterSystem::CPU` core, like `read_`, `write_`, `in_`, `out_`, etc. But,
yuck.
So ... yeah, this is an experiment. We'll see how it goes.
2016-09-03 11:26:04 +00:00
|
|
|
x = operand();
|
2016-08-19 14:11:26 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2016-09-04 13:51:27 +00:00
|
|
|
auto Z80::instructionLD_rr_nn(uint16& x) -> void {
|
|
|
|
auto lo = operand();
|
|
|
|
auto hi = operand();
|
|
|
|
x = hi << 8 | lo << 0;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2016-08-19 14:11:26 +00:00
|
|
|
auto Z80::instructionNOP() -> void {
|
|
|
|
}
|