You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The undocumented out (c),0 instruction is the original NMOS Z80 behaviour. On newer CMOS Z80 chips it writes 0xff instead. I have an emulator option to control the behaviour, so I can see the effects on software that uses that instruction. I've only just realised that since switching CPU core the option no longer has any effect.
In my local copy I've implemented a handler called on_is_cmos_z80, which returns true if it's CMOS, false if it's NMOS (the default). The core uses the return value to pick either 0xff or 0 for the instruction implementation and the disassembler output.
If you think that's how you'd implement it I can put up a small pull request with the changes. If you think there's a better way to do it could I please request it be supported in a future release?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This a bit overlaps with #15, it probably should be implemented via introducing of CPU variants. I'm going play with the code a little to figure out a natural way to do this...
The undocumented
out (c),0
instruction is the original NMOS Z80 behaviour. On newer CMOS Z80 chips it writes 0xff instead. I have an emulator option to control the behaviour, so I can see the effects on software that uses that instruction. I've only just realised that since switching CPU core the option no longer has any effect.In my local copy I've implemented a handler called
on_is_cmos_z80
, which returns true if it's CMOS, false if it's NMOS (the default). The core uses the return value to pick either 0xff or 0 for the instruction implementation and the disassembler output.If you think that's how you'd implement it I can put up a small pull request with the changes. If you think there's a better way to do it could I please request it be supported in a future release?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: