World: r3wp
[rebcode] Rebcode discussion
older newer | first last |
Steeve 23-Feb-2007 [1853] | 4096 entries are requested to cover all possiblities |
BrianH 23-Feb-2007 [1854] | Perhaps some math to do much of the work would be preferable. |
Steeve 23-Feb-2007 [1855] | finally, 4ko, is not so huge |
BrianH 23-Feb-2007 [1856] | You are right there... |
Steeve 23-Feb-2007 [1857] | *4 kb :-) |
BrianH 23-Feb-2007 [1858] | I forget (and don't have rebcode installed on this PC), what happens if you pick out-of-range in rebcode? |
Steeve 23-Feb-2007 [1859x4] | don't konw , never occured |
i test | |
** Script Error: Out of range or past end ** Where: f ** Near: pickz a b 10 | |
quite good | |
BrianH 23-Feb-2007 [1863] | Not for what I was thinking. I was trying a multistep process where the need for the next step is determined by whether the pick of the earlier succeeded. I suppose the same could be accomplished by math, but a pick would have allowed smaller lookup tables. |
Steeve 23-Feb-2007 [1864] | and using past? |
BrianH 23-Feb-2007 [1865] | How does the DAA react differently after an add or a sub? Could you simplify things by combining the add/sub and the daa into a larger logical opcode? It occured to me, looking at your code earlier, that you could combine strings of opcodes that didn't include writes to memory into larger virtual opcodes, to cut down on interpreter overhead when not necessary. |
Steeve 23-Feb-2007 [1866] | i see, but DAA not follows sub or add opcodes, he can act severall opcodes later |
BrianH 23-Feb-2007 [1867] | It would mean more branch tables or some branch index arithmetic, but the interpreter could be made much faster in certain cases. |
Steeve 23-Feb-2007 [1868] | Z80 just remember if the last math operation was an add or a substract |
BrianH 23-Feb-2007 [1869] | What is the effect of the add/sub that affects the DAA? Is it some flag? |
Steeve 23-Feb-2007 [1870x2] | yes a flag, but this flag is not visible |
so in rebcode , i will have to manage this trick by myself, with seting my own DaaFlag after a sub or an add | |
BrianH 23-Feb-2007 [1872] | Sorry, that answers my question. Perhaps putting the DAA implementation in the blocks of an either statement on that flag would lessen the lookup overhead. |
Steeve 23-Feb-2007 [1873] | *by setting |
BrianH 23-Feb-2007 [1874] | I'm curious as to what the effect really is. Perhaps a positive/negative issue? |
Steeve 23-Feb-2007 [1875x2] | you can sse the trick here http://www.zilog.com/docs/z80/um0080.pdf |
*see | |
BrianH 23-Feb-2007 [1877x2] | So, it looks like 3 flags, one of which may be set afterwards, and some ranges. Either that means some really interesting math, or a 4096 byte lookup table :( |
What's the H flag? | |
Steeve 23-Feb-2007 [1879] | Half carry flag |
BrianH 23-Feb-2007 [1880] | What's that for? |
Steeve 23-Feb-2007 [1881] | set if bit 4 is set after an operation |
BrianH 23-Feb-2007 [1882] | Got it. |
Steeve 23-Feb-2007 [1883] | useless in most case (i don't manage it in my code) |
BrianH 23-Feb-2007 [1884] | It seems to matter here. Perhaps you should set it after BCD operations. |
Steeve 23-Feb-2007 [1885x2] | yep, i fear that |
i have to handle it in all math operations | |
BrianH 23-Feb-2007 [1887] | Or for that matter, you could set the reference to the lookup table to be the appropriate one after the initial operation. That way you don't need to test the flag later - the flag could be implied. |
Steeve 23-Feb-2007 [1888] | yep it's a possibility |
BrianH 23-Feb-2007 [1889] | No need to follow CPU internal execution patterns when you aren't a real CPU. |
Steeve 23-Feb-2007 [1890x7] | thats why the lookup table have 4096 entries |
get the correct offset following the content of accumulator before math operation | |
then retrive the corrected BCD result using the byte AFTER the math operation | |
hum not sure about what i said, i have to think ... more | |
the problem with the Half carry flag is that you must compare the data before with the data after | |
you can't just test the 4th bit of the resulting data | |
5th sorry | |
BrianH 23-Feb-2007 [1897] | So, you do BCD arithmetic by using binary arithmetic on BCD values and then using DAA to fudge the data afterwards? |
Steeve 23-Feb-2007 [1898] | i fear it will slow the math operations more than expected |
BrianH 23-Feb-2007 [1899] | You can improve the overall speed elsewhere by combining strings of operations between writes to memory. |
Steeve 23-Feb-2007 [1900x2] | it's not me who do that but Z80 :-) |
combining... | |
BrianH 23-Feb-2007 [1902] | No, you can do it. The main reason that you have to branch back to the beginning of your interpreter at every step is because the next step might have been modified by the previous. You can speed that up though, by realizing that the only statements that really need that paranoia are memory writes and branches - other opcodes can by combined in your interpreter, like looking more than one move ahead in chess. |
older newer | first last |