Page 1 of 6
Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results
Posted: Tue May 22, 2018 3:34 pm
by RMartins
Which instruction are these ?
ALO A, A
ALO something
SLIA A
SRO (xy)
Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results
Posted: Tue May 22, 2018 3:43 pm
by RMartins
There are some inconsistent results too
Running `Z80Full.tap`
Gives 002 errors, for example.
and I see that instruction INC RR an INC XY (apparently they are different things (could it be second is for iX and iY ?) are returned as OK.
But these return as errors, when running `Z80ccf.tap`
It's not running a subset of the full test, or something fishy is going on.
NOTE: I was using FUSE, for test.
Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results
Posted: Tue May 22, 2018 4:22 pm
by zx81
RMartins wrote: ↑Tue May 22, 2018 3:43 pm
There are some inconsistent results too
Running `Z80Full.tap`
Gives 002 errors, for example.
and I see that instruction INC RR an INC XY (apparently they are different things (could it be second is for iX and iY ?) are returned as OK.
But these return as errors, when running `Z80ccf.tap`
It's not running a subset of the full test, or something fishy is going on.
NOTE: I was using FUSE, for test.
That's true. I have Fuse 1.5.3 compiled from sources by myself running Fedora 28 (GCC 8.1.1). z80full fails two tests. But z80ccf fails 65 tests, first the 000 SELF TEST and then from INC RR fails many tests, JMP instructions included.
JSpeccy pass all tests OK from z80ccf. I'm very confident with Patrik's tests. I suspect from some problem with Fuse.
Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results
Posted: Tue May 22, 2018 5:32 pm
by RMartins
Independently of the quality of the test tool, it might have some specific dependency on a specific instruction, that if it fails, it might trigger a lot of other fails.
What I mean, is a simple fail, might trigger a lot more fails, because the test tool relies on that specific bad instruction, to make other tests.
Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results
Posted: Tue May 22, 2018 5:34 pm
by druellan
RMartins wrote: ↑Tue May 22, 2018 3:43 pm
It's not running a subset of the full test, or something fishy is going on.
The readme says: "- z80ccf - tests all flags after executing CCF after each instruction tested.", so I understand is not a subset of the z80full but a variation of the test?
Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results
Posted: Tue May 22, 2018 5:50 pm
by druellan
Z80Stealth 1.23
Result: 025 of 152 tests failed.
Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results
Posted: Tue May 22, 2018 5:57 pm
by druellan
Patrik Rak however later discovered that the way how the flags 5 and 3 are affected after SCF/CCF actually depends on the previous instruction completed. In case of genuine Zilog CPU, if an instruction modifies the flags, the immediately following SCF/CCF does move of bits 5 and 3 from A to F, whereas if an instruction doesn't modify the flags (and after interrupt), the SCF/CCF does OR of bits 5 and 3 from A to F. In case of NEC and other clones, it is similar, except that instead of OR it does AND with some unknown value, making the result unreliable.
Source:
https://faqwiki.zxnet.co.uk/wiki/Z80
The z80ccf.tap is perhaps related to that?
Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results
Posted: Tue May 22, 2018 6:03 pm
by zx81
druellan wrote: ↑Tue May 22, 2018 5:57 pm
Patrik Rak however later discovered that the way how the flags 5 and 3 are affected after SCF/CCF actually depends on the previous instruction completed. In case of genuine Zilog CPU, if an instruction modifies the flags, the immediately following SCF/CCF does move of bits 5 and 3 from A to F, whereas if an instruction doesn't modify the flags (and after interrupt), the SCF/CCF does OR of bits 5 and 3 from A to F. In case of NEC and other clones, it is similar, except that instead of OR it does AND with some unknown value, making the result unreliable.
Source:
https://faqwiki.zxnet.co.uk/wiki/Z80
The z80ccf.tap is perhaps related to that?
Yes, it's related.
Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results
Posted: Tue May 22, 2018 6:05 pm
by RMartins
OK, then a great test to do, is save the app into a snapshot after break, and then run it on a real Spectrum, using DIVIde, DivMMC or similar.
I'm curious to run this on the ZX Next too
Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results
Posted: Tue May 22, 2018 6:32 pm
by MonkZy
ZXBaremulator (version 3.H.5)
All tests pass!!
Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results
Posted: Tue May 22, 2018 6:51 pm
by zx81
[mention]MonkZy[/mention]
Thanks by the test. JSpeccy shares the Z80 core with ZX Baremulator, simply translated from Java to C++.
Are you using a mini-LCD monitor or a Raspberry's LCD touch screen?. Your system is really cool...
Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results
Posted: Tue May 22, 2018 6:55 pm
by MonkZy
The screen is a cheap Chinese clone from eBay, it is a copy of the Waveshare 5" display. It does have a touch screen but I don't use it as the driver support is not good. The case is designed and printed by me
I will open a thread about it, one day. I am a huge ZXBaremulator fan.
Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results
Posted: Sat May 26, 2018 5:58 pm
by Magnus
May I add the results for SoftSpectrum48 (it was a pain though
):
Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results
Posted: Sat May 26, 2018 8:36 pm
by druellan
Magnus wrote: ↑Sat May 26, 2018 5:58 pm
May I add the results for SoftSpectrum48 (it was a pain though
):
Nice work. I'm testing your emulator and I can say it looks promising. It plays the Gyroscope music quite well, something not all emulators are able to do.
Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results
Posted: Sat May 26, 2018 9:11 pm
by Pegaz
Spectramine v1.0.1b, passed all tests.
I'm not surprised, Woody has already praised this emulator, as very precise...
Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results
Posted: Sat May 26, 2018 9:23 pm
by Magnus
druellan wrote: ↑Sat May 26, 2018 8:36 pm
Magnus wrote: ↑Sat May 26, 2018 5:58 pm
May I add the results for SoftSpectrum48 (it was a pain though
):
Nice work. I'm testing your emulator and I can say it looks promising. It plays the Gyroscope music quite well, something not all emulators are able to do.
Thanks
. Gyroscope is tough - Fuse plays it better (as does Spectramine and probably many others).
Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results
Posted: Sun May 27, 2018 11:34 am
by zx81
druellan wrote: ↑Sat May 26, 2018 8:36 pm
Nice work. I'm testing your emulator and I can say it looks promising. It plays the Gyroscope music quite well, something not all emulators are able to do.
I can't hear any specially hard to emulate on Gyroscope music. It's a simple tune, really. From my POV emulate Fairlight, Sidewize, Cobra, Mad Mix Game musics or the digitized voice in Cobra's Arc is hardest than Gyroscope tune.
Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results
Posted: Sun May 27, 2018 1:24 pm
by Magnus
zx81 wrote: ↑Sun May 27, 2018 11:34 am
druellan wrote: ↑Sat May 26, 2018 8:36 pm
Nice work. I'm testing your emulator and I can say it looks promising. It plays the Gyroscope music quite well, something not all emulators are able to do.
I can't hear any specially hard to emulate on Gyroscope music. It's a simple tune, really. From my POV emulate Fairlight, Sidewize, Cobra, Mad Mix Game musics or the digitized voice in Cobra's Arc is hardest than Gyroscope tune.
Well, maybe not, but my emulator stutters a bit when playing the Gyroscope music, though it seems to be doing fine with most other games. I gave Cobra's Arc a try and it sounded terrible, but I'm not quite sure how it should sound (I have no hardware to check against).
Edit: Sorry about taking this off topic.
Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results
Posted: Sun May 27, 2018 1:51 pm
by druellan
zx81 wrote: ↑Sun May 27, 2018 11:34 am
I can't hear any specially hard to emulate on Gyroscope music. It's a simple tune, really. From my POV emulate Fairlight, Sidewize, Cobra, Mad Mix Game musics or the digitized voice in Cobra's Arc is hardest than Gyroscope tune.
Well, in my experience there is always something off on Melbourne's music system, and specially on Gyroscope, mainly because it's a tune a remember well. The melody pops on some emulators, and sometimes there is a distinctive hi-pitch sound on the background. Even FUSE used to have problems with this (now, much better), and I use SpecEmu as reference.
Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results
Posted: Sun May 27, 2018 1:53 pm
by druellan
Oh, and I agree about Odin's music system: Robin of the Woods, for example, it's a nightmare, that pops even on real hardware.
Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results
Posted: Sun May 27, 2018 2:00 pm
by druellan
Magnus wrote: ↑Sun May 27, 2018 1:24 pm
Well, maybe not, but my emulator stutters a bit when playing the Gyroscope music, though it seems to be doing fine with most other games. I gave Cobra's Arc a try and it sounded terrible, but I'm not quite sure how it should sound (I have no hardware to check against).
SpecEmu is a good reference.
Magnus wrote: ↑Sun May 27, 2018 1:24 pm
Edit: Sorry about taking this off topic.
I don't think it is offtopic at all, and even better if this helps to improve the emulation quality of any project!
Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results
Posted: Sun May 27, 2018 2:53 pm
by Ast A. Moore
Cobra’s Arc and
Gryroscope seem to be using the
Wham! engine for their music.
Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results
Posted: Wed May 30, 2018 3:58 pm
by Hernan
Not technically an emulator, but I've run the tests on my ZX-Uno (v4.1 crowdfund, latest EXP26 core) and my Next board (Issue 2A, latest v.1.10.31 core).
ZX-Uno:
23/152 failed
ZX Spectrum Next:
24/152 failed
To be fair, I epected much better results...
Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results
Posted: Wed May 30, 2018 4:05 pm
by Ast A. Moore
Hernan wrote: ↑Wed May 30, 2018 3:58 pm
Not technically an emulator
Yes, both the ZX-Uno and the Spectrum Next are technically emulators.
Hardware emulators (well, hardware+firmware). Neither perfectly emulates the Z80 CPU nor the Spectrum itself.
Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results
Posted: Wed May 30, 2018 4:05 pm
by djnzx48
Wow, I'm definitely surprised that the Next failed so many tests! Are there any major revisions expected in the future?