English Amiga Board


Go Back   English Amiga Board > Coders > Coders. Asm / Hardware

 
 
Thread Tools
Old Yesterday, 11:58   #1
hop
Registered User
 
hop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: UK
Posts: 274
Disassembling/executing instructions with unused bits

How does the 68000 decode instructions with unused bits? Is this well-defined or undefined behaviour?

For example
ORI.B $#ff,D1
assembles to two words:
0001 00FF
. The upper byte in the second word is not required to define the byte-sized instruction.

What should happen if the CPU/disassembler/emulator encounters non-zero bits in there? For example:
0001 FFFF
. Will the $ff00 bits in the second word simply be ignored (by the spec), or will the decoder class this as an illegal instruction.

Sorry if this is in the manual - I couldn't find any information on it.

Last edited by hop; Yesterday at 11:59. Reason: Clarity
hop is offline  
Old Yesterday, 13:54   #2
paraj
Registered User
 
paraj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,271
The unused bits are just ignored (by all M68K versions), same with 000/010 and the previously unused bits in the extension word (scale/full extension word bit). The latter is at least documented (68000PRM 2.4).

An emulator should obviously behave the same way or it will fail on actual code.

A good disassembler will reproduce the original instruction, i.e. preserve the unused bits. Otherwise you can't reassemble the same binary. Maybe via a dc.w sequence if the original instruction can't be accurately re-used in context (e.g. for the extension word thing)
paraj is offline  
Old Yesterday, 14:48   #3
jimshaw
Registered User
 
jimshaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 8
You'd have to tell a disassembler which cpu the code was intended for, else it won't know the right thing to do with bits that are undefined on 68000 and used for something new on the 68020 or later.
jimshaw is offline  
Old Yesterday, 20:42   #4
hop
Registered User
 
hop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: UK
Posts: 274
Thanks for the great advice. The reassembly is just what caught me out.
hop is offline  
Old Today, 08:51   #5
hop
Registered User
 
hop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: UK
Posts: 274
A solution might be to ensure that the disassembler disassembles
0001 1234
to
ORI.B #$1234,D1
and the assembler assembles this back to
0001 1234
. This avoids
DC
directives which obfuscate how the CPU would decode the machine code.
hop is offline  
Old Today, 12:03   #6
kamelito
Zone Friend
 
kamelito's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: France
Posts: 1,871
Is this instructions or data’s that the disassembler set as instructions ? Sometimes its not code and should be set as dc.x
kamelito is offline  
Old Today, 13:25   #7
phx
Natteravn
 
phx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Herford / Germany
Posts: 2,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by paraj View Post
A good disassembler will reproduce the original instruction, i.e. preserve the unused bits. Otherwise you can't reassemble the same binary. Maybe via a dc.w sequence if the original instruction can't be accurately re-used in context (e.g. for the extension word thing)
Yes, that's what IRA is doing by default.
But currently
-compat=i
would output
ORI.B #$34,D1
and masks out the upper byte (because otherwise assemblers may complain).

Quote:
Originally Posted by hop View Post
A solution might be to ensure that the disassembler disassembles
0001 1234
to
ORI.B #$1234,D1
and the assembler assembles this back to
0001 1234
. This avoids
DC
directives which obfuscate how the CPU would decode the machine code.
You may try the following patch for IRA:
Code:
--- ira.c       30 Jun 2024 15:45:14 -0000      1.84
+++ ira.c       20 Jul 2024 11:28:03 -0000
@@ -2173,7 +2173,7 @@
                         else
                         {
                            adrcat("$");
-                           adrcat(itohex(buf & 0x00FF, 2));
+                           adrcat(itohex(buf & 0xFFFF, 2));
                         }
                      }
                }
And the following patch for vasm:
Code:
--- cpus/m68k/cpu.c     24 Jun 2024 22:18:20 -0000      1.314
+++ cpus/m68k/cpu.c     20 Jul 2024 11:29:16 -0000
@@ -4879,10 +4879,15 @@
             if (op->flags & FL_ExtVal0) {
               roffs++;
               rsize = 8;
-              *d++ = 0;
-              d = write_extval(0,1,db,d,op,rtype);
-              if (typechk && (op->extval[0]<-0x80 || op->extval[0]>0xff))
-                cpu_error(36);  /* immediate operand out of range */
+              if (op->extval[0]<-0x80 || op->extval[0]>0xff) {
+                if (typechk)
+                  cpu_error(36);  /* immediate operand out of range */
+                d = write_extval(0,2,db,d,op,rtype);
+              }
+              else {
+                *d++ = 0;
+                d = write_extval(0,1,db,d,op,rtype);
+              }
             }
             else
               cpu_error(37);  /* immediate operand has illegal type */
And try if it works for all situations. You will need
-no-typechk
or
-rangewarnings
with vasm to avoid error messages due to range-checking.

Last edited by phx; Today at 13:31.
phx is offline  
 


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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bug? Black Unused Display Zilog support.WinUAE 4 28 October 2020 21:11
HDD: Wipe (Zero) unused Blocks bladecgn support.Apps 7 01 November 2018 16:01
Error when executing PGA Europe 1time project.WHDLoad 1 25 March 2010 18:57
Selling some unused parts McVenco MarketPlace 3 18 October 2008 15:16
Unused Connectors/Ports BippyM support.Hardware 16 26 July 2006 13:56

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 17:26.

Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Page generated in 0.13369 seconds with 15 queries