On 11/30/2014 02:25 PM, email@example.com wrote: > On 2014-11-30 02:48, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > >>> I ran the tests. Tried earlier but they take much longer than I thought >>> so I finished only tonight. And.. the MOS 6502AD passes all the tests >>> from that suite. The R6502AP fails repeatedly on one called "pc64-aneb". >>> Since the mnemonics are different from what I once learned I don't know >>> what command this is. Probably something from the AND family. But the >>> difference is there every time I run the tests (why - BTW - does it have >>> to spin the motor all the time?) >> >> That seems (from the name) to be testing ANE, a.k.a. XAA, op $8b. >> >> It is the most unstable unsupported op, giving different results >> _per run_ on some MOS/CSG devices as well. It is heavily temperature, >> process, batch, phase-of-the-moon, you-name-it dependent :-) > > Mayby I should retest it during full moon :-) > > But since we only passed new moon phase - currently all runs are > consistent: all three MOS chips I have left pass, while all Rockwells > fail right away. It may be of little practical meaning but it seems to > show that there is some difference in both chip's implementations. Doesn't have to the implementation. It could be enough that they were made in 2 different factories. But remember, Commodore used the R6502AP in their disk drives without any problems. So unless you plan something VERY esoteric, a failure in a test of a known unstable illegal opcode means nothing if all other tests pass. Gerrit Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing listReceived on 2014-11-30 14:00:48
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.