27 May 2017, 21:06 | #81 |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Karlstad / Sweden
Age: 52
Posts: 1,211
|
|
27 May 2017, 21:09 | #82 |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Karlstad / Sweden
Age: 52
Posts: 1,211
|
Jens cards no FPU.. well. that is "semitrue" as the "latest" version can have a FPU. (I have one soldered on the 1233 I test machines with to check if timingfix is needed..
Anyway. FPU in a 020/030 solution is kind of pointless. while many programs written for 040/060 more or less expects the fpu to be present. (and is a reason why so many 040/060 programs crash on the vampire (especially demos) |
27 May 2017, 23:14 | #83 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,284
|
@kev and Chucky
Who is doing the decapping? What is the purpose? 1) Preservation of history 2) Recreating a synthesizable 68060 to use as is in an FPGA 3) Use the 68060 design to create an enhanced and more modern 68k CPU @all Gunnar's philosophy is certainly different than mine which is why I left his "team". His philosophy includes... o only do what gives maximum theoretical performance o add more registers, more registers, share registers o hyper-optimize for an FPGA and even particular kind of FPGA o don't plan for a path forward into the future o work free for me while I make all the decisions |
28 May 2017, 00:44 | #84 | |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: usa
Posts: 103
|
Quote:
|
|
28 May 2017, 01:49 | #85 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,284
|
Is there anywhere where I can read up on progress? Any contact info?
I worked on an enhanced 68k ISA before someone decided they were going to make all the "team" decisions for the Apollo Core. I would like to connect with sane people who would like to enhance the 68k. |
28 May 2017, 01:58 | #86 | |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: usa
Posts: 103
|
Quote:
|
|
28 May 2017, 06:00 | #87 |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Karlstad / Sweden
Age: 52
Posts: 1,211
|
Simply option 2.
to make a cycleexact fpga version of the 68060. if option 3. well. then you have the "080" and my feared incompability. so.. no. just a exact implementation of the 060 in FPGA. simple. |
28 May 2017, 06:20 | #88 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,284
|
First off, a cycle exact implementation of the 68060 in an affordable FPGA may not be possible. Some things are probably slower in an affordable FPGA than even a decades old CPU. Parts of the CPU may need reworking. Second, there is no need for a cycle exact 68k CPU on the Amiga. Each new 68k CPU was not cycle exact with the last so why does a new 68k CPU need to be cycle exact when Motorola didn't think it was necessary? Third, other than bugs and poor ISA decisions, the Apollo Core is more compatible with earlier 68k CPUs than the 68060.
|
28 May 2017, 06:55 | #89 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: usa
Posts: 103
|
matthey i sent you a link to his webpage check your email
|
28 May 2017, 10:09 | #90 | ||
son of 68k
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lyon / France
Age: 51
Posts: 5,355
|
Quote:
Quote:
Aside of possible bugs they come from : - being identified as some 68k cpu which is expected to have mmu+fpu, while they're not there - adding new registers which forces exec patches to save them on context switches - stealing opcode space of callm/rtm - resurrecting old 68000 move sr bug without being identified as 68000 |
||
28 May 2017, 10:58 | #91 |
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: berlin/germany
Posts: 1,054
|
|
28 May 2017, 11:00 | #92 |
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: berlin/germany
Posts: 1,054
|
@ matthey, kev, meynaf
good luck with your plan. even if its probably lightyears behind apollo core, but alternatives would be very welcome. especially open ones, which i do not even dare to expect. |
28 May 2017, 11:52 | #93 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 1,893
|
LOL, I am quite confident that Chucky got his personal needs covered when it comes to 060 chips. As someone who spend an awful lot of time repairing Amiga systems and upgrading 040 systems to 060, he has pretty good insight into the demand for good replacement solution for 68060.
|
28 May 2017, 13:51 | #94 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: berlin/germany
Posts: 1,054
|
Quote:
one way or the other i dont see anyone else going about one particular 68k cpu model replacement and on forums. if he is a skilled developer he could start or contribute to such a project himself. its hard to expect that people who actually have a succesful project running will make a u-turn, remove features and limit their own concepts just because of objections voiced by one person on some forum. |
|
28 May 2017, 16:43 | #95 |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Karlstad / Sweden
Age: 52
Posts: 1,211
|
my Diagrom takes too much time already.. but yes.. as I got like 20+ rev6 060s in stock, 060s is no issue. also got 060 in both my 4000 and 1200. and I am not negative as it "competes" with my upgrades etc. nah. the issue is that I am not happy on the path it is going..
Anyway.. there will pop up other FPGA solutions. and also other 060 alternatives. so I guess I will manage. |
28 May 2017, 17:18 | #96 | |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: usa
Posts: 103
|
Quote:
|
|
28 May 2017, 17:19 | #97 | |||||
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,284
|
Thanks. That guy looks smart enough and has quite the lab.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
This would be really low on the incompatibility scale (easily a 1). I don't have any plans to reuse this encoding space but I would not be opposed if there was something really compelling. Quote:
I see your point that the "080" is a doppelganger of existing 68k designs rather than having a true identity of itself. This makes sense to some extent for compatibility but then you claim it doesn't have enough compatibility. In a perfect world, a new 68k like CPU would have its own identity (defined by an ISA) and the 68k AmigaOS would add support or it. I am not so eager to criticize here considering the circumstances. Getting the old software running is one of the highest priorities and an FPGA CPU design can be changed. |
|||||
28 May 2017, 17:58 | #98 |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Karlstad / Sweden
Age: 52
Posts: 1,211
|
|
28 May 2017, 18:12 | #99 | ||||||
son of 68k
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lyon / France
Age: 51
Posts: 5,355
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
While one can't do really malicious code by just reading the SR, the supervisor of a sandboxed system must believe it's in supervisor mode while this is not technically true, otherwise the virtualization system will be unable to emulate his SR properly. The 080 can have its own identity, it's just that it must be detected as something that's close enough to some previous member to not cause compatibility issues too much, like 68060 initially detected as being 68040 (usually this works). |
||||||
28 May 2017, 19:22 | #100 |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Amigaplanet
Posts: 645
|
So many useless comments from people who have no card. Go out, get some fresh air, it is summer...
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Vampire 600 V2 - unofficial Q&A thread | eXeler0 | Amiga scene | 73 | 02 April 2023 18:29 |
Old KGLoad Discussion | killergorilla | project.KGLoad | 357 | 20 January 2011 16:08 |
Castlevania Discussion | john4p | Retrogaming General Discussion | 30 | 30 January 2009 02:10 |
ROM Discussion... | derSammler | project.EAB | 41 | 29 January 2008 23:36 |
General Discussion | Zetr0 | project.Amiga Game Factory | 12 | 15 December 2005 13:53 |
|
|