byuu says:
Six and a half hours this time ... one new opcode, and all old opcodes
now in a deprecated format. Hooray, progress!
For building the table, I've decided to move from:
for(uint opcode : range(65536)) {
if(match(...)) bind(opNAME, ...);
}
To instead having separate for loops for each supported opcode. This
lets me specialize parts I want with templates.
And to this aim, I'm moving to replace all of the
(read,write)(size, ...) functions with (read,write)<Size>(...) functions.
This will amount to the ~70ish instructions being triplicated ot ~210ish
instructions; but I think this is really important.
When I was getting into flag calculations, a ton of conditionals
were needed to mask sizes to byte/word/long. There was also lots of
conditionals in all the memory access handlers.
The template code is ugly, but we eliminate a huge amount of branch
conditions this way.
byuu says:
Four and a half hours of work and ... zero new opcodes implemented.
This was the best job I could do refining the effective address
computations. Should have all twelve 68000 modes implemented now. Still
have a billion questions about when and how I'm supposed to perform
certain edge case operations, though.
byuu says:
Up to ten 68K instructions out of somewhere between 61 and 88, depending
upon which PDF you look at. Of course, some of them aren't 100% completed
yet, either. Lots of craziness with MOVEM, and BCC has a BSR variant
that needs stack push/pop functions.
This WIP actually took over eight hours to make, going through every
possible permutation on how to design the core itself. The updated design
now builds both the instruction decoder+dispatcher and the disassembler
decoder into the same main loop during M68K's constructor.
The special cases are also really psychotic on this processor, and
I'm afraid of missing something via the fallthrough cases. So instead,
I'm ordering the instructions alphabetically, and including exclusion
cases to ignore binding invalid cases. If I end up remapping an existing
register, then it'll throw a run-time assertion at program startup.
I wanted very much to get rid of struct EA (EffectiveAddress), but
it's too difficult to keep track of the internal effective address
without it. So I split out the size to a separate parameter, since
every opcode only has one size parameter, and otherwise it was getting
duplicated in opcodes that take two EAs, and was also awkward with the
flag testing. It's a bit more typing, but I feel it's more clean this way.
Overall, I'm really worried this is going to be too slow. I don't want
to turn the EA stuff into templates, because that will massively bloat
out compilation times and object sizes, and will also need a special DSL
preprocessor since C++ doesn't have a static for loop. I can definitely
optimize a lot of EA's address/read/write functions away once the core
is completed, but it's never going to hold a candle to a templatized
68K core.
----
Forgot to include the SA-1 regression fix. I always remember immediately
after I upload and archive the WIP. Will try to get that in next time,
I guess.
byuu says:
Alright, I'm definitely going to need to find some people willing to
tolerate my questions on this chip, so I'm going to go ahead and announce
I'm working on this I guess.
This core is way too big for a surprise like the NES and WS cores
were. It'll probably even span multiple v10x releases before it's
even ready.
byuu says:
I now have enough of three instructions implemented to get through the
first four instructions in Sonic the Hedgehog.
But they're far from complete. The very first instruction uses EA
addressing, which is similar to x86's ModRM in terms of how disgustingly
complex it is. And it also accesses Z80 control registers, which obviously
isn't going to do anything yet.
The slow speed was me being stupid again. It's not 7.6MHz per frame,
it's 7.67MHz per second. So yeah, speed is so far acceptable again. But
we'll see how things go as I keep emulating more. The 68K decode is not
pretty at all.
Tim Allen