> >UNTRUE!!!
> >Those are the same as the Z80 versions, but work different in another
mode
> >(or havea so-called Data Directive (DDIR) opcode).
>
> What I've tried to say (but I think I had failed) that is:
> most instructions NEW on Z380 will doesn't make any sense on Z180.
> This is why they are not there.
Ofcourse, the Z180 is in fact no more than a Z80 with additional speed and
some extra instructions, mainly to handle internal I/O.
> "new" Relative calls are about the 32 bit addresses. It doesn't make
sense
> on a 8 bit processor (such as Z180).
> "new" EX are relative to new registers. It doens't make sense on a
processor
> that doesn't have such registers.
>
> Mult and Div is something new. So, the good features of Z380 are the
> Mult, Div, New registers and a new address space. The "other" new
> functions are depending on those enhancements... (and would be a
> shame if they don't exist!)
Most of the instructions you are talking about remained the same as they
used to be. They are only extended in another operation mode. There are very
few new specific instructions to cope with the extended address range.
Most new functions are 16-bit extensions (16-bit add). Those could also have
been added to the Z180. Not only DIV, but also RLCW HL - ANDW HL,BC - NEGW
HL - SUB SP,nn and things like PUSH nn - EX BC,DE etcetera.
So you are still quite wrong here, although I now understand what you mean.
> >(and maybe some Z180 too for comparisation)
>
> These I really need to read.
It's really nothing much new from the Z80. Once you know the Z80, and you
know which instructions have been added and you know about internal I/O and
traps, you've pretty much covered it all...
> >Indeed. It will be slow, but at least it will work... Haha stupid
Intel!!!
> >If they thought of this (which is really easy to implement in a chip),
then
> >they could have released software-patches for MMX, so that all software
> >could be released for MMX instead of using MMX-specific parts of code...
>
> I think x86 (starting with 286) does TRAP. They just doesn't had
implemented
> the patchs. On PC, when a trap occours (non-existent opcode) the computer
hangs,
> AFAIK.
Hmmm... If that's true the it's pretty darn stupid of them. I think it just
hangs, but doesn't trap. Otherwise, I really believe they would have
implemented it...
> >> If they cause a trap, we can make a workaround.
> >On the Z180 they do, on the Z380 there are other instructions there.
>
> This is a problem. No Z180 instruction conflicts with R800 instructions?
Afaik, no.
> >It doesn't appear that you read the Z380 specs... Read them again
please...
> >(thoroughly!).
>
> I had read, but I don't know where you found so many "new actions" Z380,
> that are not realted to the new address space and/or new registers. I'M
NOT
> SAYING THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE NEW instructions, and they are not usefull.
They
> are! With the new registers and new address space, they are amazing! But
> not on Z180. The only I really miss are mult and div, FOR MSX, of course.
> On Educar the things will be a lot different... (-;
EduCAR is not MSX.
And as I stated above, most new instructions could also have been added to
the Z180... They have nothing to do with the extended address range etc.
> >> Z180 is more "compatible" with R800 throught trapping. (-;
> >That is not an advantage.
> >The R800 instructions are hardly used, and it prevents the ability to
> >'upgrade'.
>
> That's point of view. (-;
I am trying to say that although it might execute some turboR programs
correctly where the Z380 doesn't, that's an advantage. But it must at all
cost be prevented that those instructions are also being used in newer
software.
> >'The fastest way' doesn't matter that much. It's 10.5x compared to 12x.
> >And when using it to its full potential, according to Zilog:
> >Relative Performance Z80: 2.5, Z180: 11, Z380: 33
>
> I don't know how this comparison was made.
Me neither, but it includes the benefit from the extended instruction set.
I guess they made several small programs, all optimized for their
appropriate processor, and then measured the results.
> I never said there was an extended mode on Z180. I said THE OPOSITE.
> And this is one of the reasons I like it to a "new" MSX. We just need
> a MSX2+ that will be BETTER than TurboR. In every single aspect.
> ACE002 doesn't need even be compatible with TR, I think.
I agree. Only through software perhaps...
And ofcourse the BIOS should be compatible.
> >If it's already there, they must (otherwise they can't run new European
> >software anymore).
>
> I think they're not "that worried" about this. (-;
Wouldn't they??? I doubt it...
~Grauw
--
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<
email me: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or ICQ: 10196372
visit my homepage at http://grauw.blehq.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<
****
MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and put "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the quotes) in
the body (not the subject) of the message.
Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More information on MSX can be found in the following places:
The MSX faq: http://www.faq.msxnet.org/
The MSX newsgroup: comp.sys.msx
The MSX IRC channel: #MSX on Undernet
****
