68060

glue · 20 January 2007, 23:30

now i have one question . in e-uae i see 68060 CPU CODE . Toni is possibly to make this in WINUAE ?

[moved from beta thread]

Toni Wilen · 21 January 2007, 00:02

Yes and no. It is broken. (why? because it was me who implemented "68060" support ages ago..)

You can enable it in winuae by manually editing configuration file.

Broken? "68060" = 68040 + single instruction semi-incorrectly emulated to make setpatch to think it is a 68060. (=for example FPU is still 68040 FPU = FPU won't be available and 68060.library also does some things incorrectly)

and finally: 68060 IS COMPLETELY USELESS. Speed is exactly the same (or possibly slower because 68060 has less instructions in "hardware" than 68040) and NO PROGRAM NEEDS 68060. 68060 is only "required" because _REAL_ 68060 is much faster than 68040. (sorry for shouting but this another faq..)

Shamino · 21 January 2007, 00:42

What do you mean, "no program needs 68060", there are lots of programs requiring this.

I'm not sure why the reluctance to implement this, by what you are saying I get the sense that it wouldn't be difficult. If it's available by editing the config file then why not add an option in the GUI, it's not good to make people stuff around with text configuration files, this isn't UNIX.

Most real Amiga users have 68060, failing to emulate this means they are unlikely to consider UAE to be a viable replacement for their hardware Amigas.

Toni Wilen · 21 January 2007, 00:49

I REPEAT: THERE ARE NO AMIGA PROGRAMS THAT REQUIRE 68060 BECAUSE OF MISSING INSTRUCTIONS. ALL "REQUIRE" IT BECAUSE *REAL* 68060 IS FASTER THAN 68040.

Just download patch that fakes the 68060 bit in execbase from Aminet.

It won't be in GUI because it would only result in 100x more bug reports. (until it works properly)

Quote:

Most real Amiga users have 68060, failing to emulate this means they are unlikely to consider UAE to be a viable replacement for their hardware Amigas.

I don't care if they don't understand the difference between real and emulated CPUs.

keropi · 21 January 2007, 00:54

ok shamino, consider this:
why real amiga users have 060's ??? because they need more speed.
and now take winuae with it's 040 emulator. and benchmark it... do you know how it perfoms? like a several gigahertz 040 on a modern system.
so there is no need to emulate a 060 in winuae, in reality there is no amiga program that requires a 060, only some better ones are optimized for various cpu types, like 020, 040 and 060... but none runs only on 060... for example suppose there was a prog that had seperate binaries for 020, 040 and 060. the 020 and 040 binaries would run ten times faster on winuae, than a real 060 amiga would run the 060 binary...

Shamino · 21 January 2007, 00:59

Of course selecting "68060" wouldn't make it run faster, I understand this.

But what I don't understand is why it's better to make everyone run an Aminet patch to set the 68060 flag, rather than having this functionality in the emulator.

I'm not sure why there would necessarily be masses of bug reports. I suspect the number of bug reports it would lead to would be considerably lower than the number of feature requests for 68060 support.

And in any event bug reports are not a bad thing. When they are actioned they help to improve the quality of the emulator.

Toni Wilen · 21 January 2007, 01:09

Because "real" (minus MMU) 68060 emulation will require changes to JIT (68060 without JIT support would be extremely pointless) and I am not going to touch it. Unfortunately only few people knows how to patch UAE's JIT.

Lots of work for mostly nothing, imho.

StingRay · 21 January 2007, 15:45

How about having a little checkbox in the GUI saying "fake 68060?" or something? When enabled, it would just patch the attn flags like the aminet patch. Just an idea.

Anubis · 22 January 2007, 17:30

Just create option for 68060 and still do 68040 cpu emulation.

Everyone happy!

StingRay · 22 January 2007, 21:21

That was exactly what I meant.

Since real 68060 emulation is useless indeed.

Konrad · 23 January 2007, 00:41

I think you didn't get Anubis' joke

.

Tony's target is to make WinUAE as accurate as possible. So why should he add this option to the gui if 68060 emulation ist not working correctly and he's not going to change that ? He will then have people moaning that it doesn't work correctly and he'll have to tell them that he's not going to work on this. Pointless to me...
There's no problem in running the patch from AmiNet, nothing complicated about it. If YOU rather like to have 68060 emulation you now know how to activate it. But now that Tony said that it's working incorrectly you should also consider running the patch instead.

StingRay · 23 January 2007, 02:38

Before you call something pointless you better read more carefully first. Where did I say I want to have 68060 emulation? Tell me, where did I say anything about wanting to have real 68060 emulation? What I pointed out was a possible solution for people who requested 68060 emulation. Mind you, me, myself and I don't need this feature. If I'd come across programs that would require 68060 I could patch them myself. And what I wrote was meant serious and not to be taken as joke as I consider it indeed useful. And I don't see why people would complain about it not working when all it would do is changing some flags in exec to fool the system into "thinking" there's a 060 cpu working. Yes, really pointless indeed... As pointless as the "Immediate Blitter" option...

Also, what is so hard to understand about the "fake" part in my "fake 68060?" suggestion? Everyone with at least half a braincell would see that it is FAKING something, anyone who would think it's real 68060 emulation should not be using UAE anyway...

Konrad · 23 January 2007, 08:26

Oh, I do understand what you mean. No need to reread your posts. I think YOU should pay more attention.

Quote:

Originally Posted by StingRay

Also, what is so hard to understand about the "fake" part in my "fake 68060?" suggestion? Everyone with at least half a braincell would see that it is FAKING something, anyone who would think it's real 68060 emulation should not be using UAE anyway...

Fake doesn't mean that it's not working correctly. So even if you write "Fake 68060" people will still complain when it's not working correctly. That's normal behaviour. A user finds a bug / something doesn't work correctly => he writes a bug report.
Tony said that 68060 emulation is not working correctly, so bugs will appear and people WILL report them, no matter if there's "Fake" written in the gui or not. He also said that he's not going to work on this, so these reports would be pointless.
So why go this route (adding a buggy option to the gui of Winuae, getting bug reports for something that won't be fixed and is definately NOT needed) when you could simply run a patch from Aminet which works better ?

Quote:

When enabled, it would just patch the attn flags like the aminet patch.

Tony's Target = accurate emulation. And patching something isn't accurate.

Yes, including that option in the GUI of WinUAE IS pointless to me.

Toni Wilen · 23 January 2007, 08:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Konrad

Tony's Target = accurate emulation. And patching something isn't accurate.

I don't really agree with this.

Accuracy has higher priority in A500-mode. 68020+ depends. ("as accuracy as possible but without losing too much speed". or something.)

Fake 68060 is not too good idea because UAE does not know when to patch the 68060-bit. (it can't be done until setpatch has been run) Continuous polling would be extremely stupid. (Initialization of bsdsocket or Picasso96 are possible "initialization points" but what if user does not use them?)

StingRay · 23 January 2007, 12:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Konrad

Oh, I do understand what you mean. No need to reread your posts. I think YOU should pay more attention.

You still did NOT understand what I meant, else you wouldn't continue babbling about non working 68060 emulation...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Konrad

Fake doesn't mean that it's not working correctly. So even if you write "Fake 68060" people will still complain when it's not working correctly. That's normal behaviour. A user finds a bug / something doesn't work correctly => he writes a bug report.
Tony said that 68060 emulation is not working correctly, so bugs will appear and people WILL report them, no matter if there's "Fake" written in the gui or not. He also said that he's not going to work on this, so these reports would be pointless.
So why go this route (adding a buggy option to the gui of Winuae, getting bug reports for something that won't be fixed and is definately NOT needed) when you could simply run a patch from Aminet which works better ?

Tony's Target = accurate emulation. And patching something isn't accurate.

Yes, including that option in the GUI of WinUAE IS pointless to me.

Again, you totally did NOT get what I meant. Where is that option buggy? Sheez, really, read what I wrote again before writing the same things again and again. So, in your opinion, what is the "Immediate Blitter" option then? Pointless I guess when I follow your logic... Anyway, what I suggested has NOTHING, and I repeat NOTHING to do with real 68060 emulation. Because that is something I consider totally pointless myself as well. All that option would do is to change a few bits in the Exec's ATTN flags, nothing more, nothing less. No changes in the CPU emulation at all required. And programs that worked before would still do so with that option enabled. So again, it would NOT involve any real 68060 emulation at all.

StingRay · 23 January 2007, 12:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toni Wilen

Fake 68060 is not too good idea because UAE does not know when to patch the 68060-bit. (it can't be done until setpatch has been run) Continuous polling would be extremely stupid. (Initialization of bsdsocket or Picasso96 are possible "initialization points" but what if user does not use them?)

Ah ok, that's indeed not a good idea then. Thought it would be easier to do.

andreas · 24 January 2007, 20:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Konrad

Fake doesn't mean that it's not working correctly.

Thaaaaanks!

Fake MUST work correctly. As users will use native Amiga tools which check the type of hardware. If this software reports wrong kinds of hardware (horribly bad example: detecting AAA chipset where it is in fact AA (Alice)), it is of no use for anyone.

StingRay · 24 January 2007, 22:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by andreas

Thaaaaanks!

Fake MUST work correctly. As users will use native Amiga tools which check the type of hardware. If this software reports wrong kinds of hardware (horribly bad example: detecting AAA chipset where it is in fact AA (Alice)), it is of no use for anyone.

Yeah, that's why there are patches like this on Aminet because it's of no use for anyone.... And since when has a FAKE to work correctly... And seriously, wtf will enable such option and then use tools to check the system config and wondering that the results differ from the real hardware? Makes indeed sense to me.... NOT!

Konrad · 24 January 2007, 23:27

I didn't say Fake has to work correctly. But it also doesn't automatically mean that it doesn't. That's why I said that people will write error reports about this.

StingRay · 25 January 2007, 00:00

Well, slight problems could appear, I agree, but that's why there's the "fake" part of that option. Just like the beta versions of UAE have the messagebox saying it's beta software so problems may occur. Anyway, since that option is not as easy to implement as I thought, it doesn't make much sense to discuss about it much longer.

So everyone is happy. I for myself don't need it anyway.

20 January 2007, 23:30	#1
glue Banned Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: https://t.me/pump_upp Posts: 76	now i have one question . in e-uae i see 68060 CPU CODE . Toni is possibly to make this in WINUAE ? [moved from beta thread] Last edited by Toni Wilen; 21 January 2007 at 00:02.

23 January 2007, 02:38	#12
StingRay move.l #$c0ff33,throat Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Berlin/Joymoney Posts: 6,863	Before you call something pointless you better read more carefully first. Where did I say I want to have 68060 emulation? Tell me, where did I say anything about wanting to have real 68060 emulation? What I pointed out was a possible solution for people who requested 68060 emulation. Mind you, me, myself and I don't need this feature. If I'd come across programs that would require 68060 I could patch them myself. And what I wrote was meant serious and not to be taken as joke as I consider it indeed useful. And I don't see why people would complain about it not working when all it would do is changing some flags in exec to fool the system into "thinking" there's a 060 cpu working. Yes, really pointless indeed... As pointless as the "Immediate Blitter" option... Also, what is so hard to understand about the "fake" part in my "fake 68060?" suggestion? Everyone with at least half a braincell would see that it is FAKING something, anyone who would think it's real 68060 emulation should not be using UAE anyway... Last edited by StingRay; 23 January 2007 at 02:52.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
68060 numbers	Cosmos	Hardware pics	4	30 May 2011 22:54
68060 Overclocking	Hewitson	support.Hardware	56	03 February 2010 15:15
68060	Toni Wilen	request.UAE Wishlist	20	29 May 2007 00:30
68060 on ebay	Syko	MarketPlace	5	28 September 2005 17:44
68060	killergorilla	support.Hardware	2	24 March 2003 16:50

21 January 2007, 00:02	#2
Toni Wilen WinUAE developer Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Hämeenlinna/Finland Age: 49 Posts: 26,518	Yes and no. It is broken. (why? because it was me who implemented "68060" support ages ago..) You can enable it in winuae by manually editing configuration file. Broken? "68060" = 68040 + single instruction semi-incorrectly emulated to make setpatch to think it is a 68060. (=for example FPU is still 68040 FPU = FPU won't be available and 68060.library also does some things incorrectly) and finally: 68060 IS COMPLETELY USELESS. Speed is exactly the same (or possibly slower because 68060 has less instructions in "hardware" than 68040) and NO PROGRAM NEEDS 68060. 68060 is only "required" because _REAL_ 68060 is much faster than 68040. (sorry for shouting but this another faq..)

21 January 2007, 00:42	#3
Shamino Registered User Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Parramatta NSW Posts: 36	What do you mean, "no program needs 68060", there are lots of programs requiring this. I'm not sure why the reluctance to implement this, by what you are saying I get the sense that it wouldn't be difficult. If it's available by editing the config file then why not add an option in the GUI, it's not good to make people stuff around with text configuration files, this isn't UNIX. Most real Amiga users have 68060, failing to emulate this means they are unlikely to consider UAE to be a viable replacement for their hardware Amigas.

21 January 2007, 00:54	#5
keropi . Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Ioannina/Greece Posts: 5,040	ok shamino, consider this: why real amiga users have 060's ??? because they need more speed. and now take winuae with it's 040 emulator. and benchmark it... do you know how it perfoms? like a several gigahertz 040 on a modern system. so there is no need to emulate a 060 in winuae, in reality there is no amiga program that requires a 060, only some better ones are optimized for various cpu types, like 020, 040 and 060... but none runs only on 060... for example suppose there was a prog that had seperate binaries for 020, 040 and 060. the 020 and 040 binaries would run ten times faster on winuae, than a real 060 amiga would run the 060 binary...

21 January 2007, 00:59	#6
Shamino Registered User Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Parramatta NSW Posts: 36	Of course selecting "68060" wouldn't make it run faster, I understand this. But what I don't understand is why it's better to make everyone run an Aminet patch to set the 68060 flag, rather than having this functionality in the emulator. I'm not sure why there would necessarily be masses of bug reports. I suspect the number of bug reports it would lead to would be considerably lower than the number of feature requests for 68060 support. And in any event bug reports are not a bad thing. When they are actioned they help to improve the quality of the emulator.

21 January 2007, 01:09	#7
Toni Wilen WinUAE developer Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Hämeenlinna/Finland Age: 49 Posts: 26,518	Because "real" (minus MMU) 68060 emulation will require changes to JIT (68060 without JIT support would be extremely pointless) and I am not going to touch it. Unfortunately only few people knows how to patch UAE's JIT. Lots of work for mostly nothing, imho.

21 January 2007, 15:45	#8
StingRay move.l #$c0ff33,throat Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Berlin/Joymoney Posts: 6,863	How about having a little checkbox in the GUI saying "fake 68060?" or something? When enabled, it would just patch the attn flags like the aminet patch. Just an idea.

22 January 2007, 17:30	#9
Anubis Retro Gamer Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Underworld Age: 51 Posts: 4,061	Just create option for 68060 and still do 68040 cpu emulation. Everyone happy!

22 January 2007, 21:21	#10
StingRay move.l #$c0ff33,throat Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Berlin/Joymoney Posts: 6,863	That was exactly what I meant. Since real 68060 emulation is useless indeed.

23 January 2007, 00:41	#11
Konrad Registered User Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Germany Age: 43 Posts: 742	I think you didn't get Anubis' joke . Tony's target is to make WinUAE as accurate as possible. So why should he add this option to the gui if 68060 emulation ist not working correctly and he's not going to change that ? He will then have people moaning that it doesn't work correctly and he'll have to tell them that he's not going to work on this. Pointless to me... There's no problem in running the patch from AmiNet, nothing complicated about it. If YOU rather like to have 68060 emulation you now know how to activate it. But now that Tony said that it's working incorrectly you should also consider running the patch instead.

24 January 2007, 23:27	#19
Konrad Registered User Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Germany Age: 43 Posts: 742	I didn't say Fake has to work correctly. But it also doesn't automatically mean that it doesn't. That's why I said that people will write error reports about this.

25 January 2007, 00:00	#20
StingRay move.l #$c0ff33,throat Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Berlin/Joymoney Posts: 6,863	Well, slight problems could appear, I agree, but that's why there's the "fake" part of that option. Just like the beta versions of UAE have the messagebox saying it's beta software so problems may occur. Anyway, since that option is not as easy to implement as I thought, it doesn't make much sense to discuss about it much longer. So everyone is happy. I for myself don't need it anyway.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)