The ZX Spectrum Next doesn't use any part of ZX-Uno at all. This is very inaccurate statement that is, unfortunately, being spread around by misinformed people. There are aspects of the Next FPGA code that is based on open cores (like the T80), but none from ZX-Uno.zx81 wrote: ↑Wed May 30, 2018 4:27 pmIf I remember correctly, the Next uses the ZX-Uno Spectrum core, modified and not published the sources. So, the last ZX-Uno sources aren't published, until the Next team publish his modifications. A really dirty behaviour.
Modify a VHDL synthetisation is harder than modify a C, C++ or Java sources. So, the ZX-Uno Spectrum differs from the original at some points. Nothing serious, but isn't perfect. At this moment, I guess that software emulators are more precise than FPGAs synthetisations. That can change in the future, of course.
P.D.: I have a ZX-Uno v4.2 too...
Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quick results
Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results
Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results
I can't say anything by myself. These "misinformed people" are some ZX-Uno members. Probably, they have some reason to claim such thing.cthutu wrote: ↑Wed May 30, 2018 6:32 pmThe ZX Spectrum Next doesn't use any part of ZX-Uno at all. This is very inaccurate statement that is, unfortunately, being spread around by misinformed people. There are aspects of the Next FPGA code that is based on open cores (like the T80), but none from ZX-Uno.zx81 wrote: ↑Wed May 30, 2018 4:27 pm If I remember correctly, the Next uses the ZX-Uno Spectrum core, modified and not published the sources. So, the last ZX-Uno sources aren't published, until the Next team publish his modifications. A really dirty behaviour.
Modify a VHDL synthetisation is harder than modify a C, C++ or Java sources. So, the ZX-Uno Spectrum differs from the original at some points. Nothing serious, but isn't perfect. At this moment, I guess that software emulators are more precise than FPGAs synthetisations. That can change in the future, of course.
P.D.: I have a ZX-Uno v4.2 too...
Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results
Unfortunately, they have no reason. Some of them have asserted, incorrectly, that some of the code has been copied from ZX-Uno. I think this started when ULANext was added, which is similar to ULAplus. But no code was copied. None of the members have seen the code used on the Next, and I talk daily with people that do see the code.zx81 wrote: ↑Wed May 30, 2018 6:44 pmI can't say anything by myself. These "misinformed people" are some ZX-Uno members. Probably, they have some reason to claim such thing.cthutu wrote: ↑Wed May 30, 2018 6:32 pm The ZX Spectrum Next doesn't use any part of ZX-Uno at all. This is very inaccurate statement that is, unfortunately, being spread around by misinformed people. There are aspects of the Next FPGA code that is based on open cores (like the T80), but none from ZX-Uno.
I will also add that the sources have not been published since the final machine has not been released. All sources will be published when that happens. This is to stop lots of Next forks occurring before the KS backers get their hands on one.
Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results
Thanks for this thread! After testing, I decided to fix my Z80. I added the flag 3/5 behaviour for SCF and CCF, and fixed the flags bug in my RLA instruction. I now have this result:
Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results
SCF/CCF flags seems to be a little nightmare on CPUs that are not genuine Zilog.
I've found the original Patrik Rak thread 2012, where he was experimenting with this tests: https://www.worldofspectrum.org/forums/ ... ent/669314
- Ast A. Moore
- Rick Dangerous
- Posts: 2641
- Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:16 pm
Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results
AB1 is an NMOS chip, as far as I know.
Could you run this little test on your Spectrum and tell us the color of the border you see? (If you have several Spectrums, even better!)
Every man should plant a tree, build a house, and write a ZX Spectrum game.
Author of A Yankee in Iraq, a 50 fps shoot-’em-up—the first game to utilize the floating bus on the +2A/+3,
and zasm Z80 Assembler syntax highlighter.
Author of A Yankee in Iraq, a 50 fps shoot-’em-up—the first game to utilize the floating bus on the +2A/+3,
and zasm Z80 Assembler syntax highlighter.
Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results
Didn't take a picture, but it was a black border.Ast A. Moore wrote: ↑Thu May 31, 2018 12:34 am Could you run this little test on your Spectrum and tell us the color of the border you see? (If you have several Spectrums, even better!)
- Ast A. Moore
- Rick Dangerous
- Posts: 2641
- Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:16 pm
Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results
It’s an NMOS Z80 then.Hernan wrote: ↑Thu May 31, 2018 3:43 amDidn't take a picture, but it was a black border.Ast A. Moore wrote: ↑Thu May 31, 2018 12:34 am Could you run this little test on your Spectrum and tell us the color of the border you see? (If you have several Spectrums, even better!)
Every man should plant a tree, build a house, and write a ZX Spectrum game.
Author of A Yankee in Iraq, a 50 fps shoot-’em-up—the first game to utilize the floating bus on the +2A/+3,
and zasm Z80 Assembler syntax highlighter.
Author of A Yankee in Iraq, a 50 fps shoot-’em-up—the first game to utilize the floating bus on the +2A/+3,
and zasm Z80 Assembler syntax highlighter.
- Ast A. Moore
- Rick Dangerous
- Posts: 2641
- Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:16 pm
Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results
Flip back a page: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=752&start=40#p11051
Every man should plant a tree, build a house, and write a ZX Spectrum game.
Author of A Yankee in Iraq, a 50 fps shoot-’em-up—the first game to utilize the floating bus on the +2A/+3,
and zasm Z80 Assembler syntax highlighter.
Author of A Yankee in Iraq, a 50 fps shoot-’em-up—the first game to utilize the floating bus on the +2A/+3,
and zasm Z80 Assembler syntax highlighter.
Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results
The answer is in that long but fascinating 2012 WoS thread.
Z80ccf runs CCF after each opcode. If an instruction modifies the flags, the immediately following CCF (or SCF) moves bits 5+3 from A to F, whereas if an instruction doesn't modify the flags, the SCF/CCF ORs bits 5+3 from A to F.
If SCF/CCF isn't emulated the expected way, any opcode modifying flags may fail Z80ccf. I guess it's more of a sanity crosscheck than anything else.
Robin Verhagen-Guest
SevenFFF / Threetwosevensixseven / colonel32
NXtel • NXTP • ESP Update • ESP Reset • CSpect Plugins
SevenFFF / Threetwosevensixseven / colonel32
NXtel • NXTP • ESP Update • ESP Reset • CSpect Plugins
- Lethargeek
- Manic Miner
- Posts: 743
- Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2019 6:47 am
Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quick results
could someone re-run these tests on the current Next?
i'm interested if the results improved since the last time
to be specific - z80full, z80ccf and z80memptr
i'm interested if the results improved since the last time
to be specific - z80full, z80ccf and z80memptr
Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quick results
It surprised me, that the SpecIde emulator was not mentioned here yet, because it passed all the tests I tried.
https://github.com/MartianGirl/SpecIde
I think this is certainly among the top five Spectrum emulators, in terms of precision.
For now it lacks some decent GUI, especially any file browser but nonetheless, this is an excellent emulator.
Congratulations to Marta, impressive work for now.
Here are the results for z80 tests:
https://github.com/MartianGirl/SpecIde
I think this is certainly among the top five Spectrum emulators, in terms of precision.
For now it lacks some decent GUI, especially any file browser but nonetheless, this is an excellent emulator.
Congratulations to Marta, impressive work for now.
Here are the results for z80 tests:
Last edited by Pegaz on Wed Apr 29, 2020 9:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quick results
Thanks for adding the link [mention]Pegaz[/mention]
I deleted my post asking for the link, and your post saying you had added it. Thank you.
Its probably because nobody else had heard of it. Thanks for mentioning it. They also have a version build into Visual Studio which looks neat!
Has anyone tried it?
https://dotneteer.github.io/spectnetide/
I deleted my post asking for the link, and your post saying you had added it. Thank you.
Its probably because nobody else had heard of it. Thanks for mentioning it. They also have a version build into Visual Studio which looks neat!
Has anyone tried it?
https://dotneteer.github.io/spectnetide/
Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quick results
I missed this first time round [mention]druellan[/mention]. Excellent work!
Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quick results
Do you have time to test it on ZXBaremulator [mention]Pegaz[/mention]?
Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quick results
I think they are from different authors.PeterJ wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 9:28 pm Thanks for adding the link @Pegaz
I deleted my post asking for the link, and your post saying you had added it. Thank you.
Its probably because nobody else had heard of it. Thanks for mentioning it. They also have a version build into Visual Studio which looks neat!
Has anyone tried it?
https://dotneteer.github.io/spectnetide/
The author of SpecIde is Marta Sevillano Mancilla.
As far as I can see, the author of this second emulator is Istvan Novak.
Sure, no problem, Baremulator goes through all the tests, but I think zx81 already mentioned it...
Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quick results
Interesting, it's all under the same GitHub subdomain. Assume they are working together as a group. All good stuff.
Great that ZXBaremulator passes all tests as well as the latest Fuse.
Great that ZXBaremulator passes all tests as well as the latest Fuse.
Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quick results
In fact, [mention]MonkZy[/mention] has already tested the Baremulator, here:
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=752&start=20
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=752&start=20