Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quick results

Struggling with Fuse or trying to find an emulator with a specific feature. Ask your questions here.
User avatar
Ast A. Moore
Rick Dangerous
Posts: 2640
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:16 pm

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results

Post by Ast A. Moore »

RMartins wrote: Thu May 31, 2018 10:11 am
Hernan wrote: Wed May 30, 2018 4:58 pm BTW, to have a "control subject" I've run the tests on my real Issue 6A 48K Speccy, and fails 1 test (001 SCF)
...
Which specific Z80 CPU brand is in your 48K computer ?
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.
Hernan
Drutt
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed May 30, 2018 3:45 pm

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results

Post by Hernan »

RMartins wrote: Thu May 31, 2018 10:11 am Which specific Z80 CPU brand is in your 48K computer ?

Also,which tests have you run ?
Only the full ?
wht about the other tests ?
Just ran the full test. It's a NMOS Z80 made by SGS.
User avatar
Seven.FFF
Manic Miner
Posts: 735
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:50 pm
Location: USA

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results

Post by Seven.FFF »

RMartins wrote: Tue May 22, 2018 3:43 pm 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`
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
User avatar
druellan
Dynamite Dan
Posts: 1466
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2018 7:19 pm

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results

Post by druellan »

ZX-Uno running Kyp's core. All tests OK but SCF y CCF. SCF+CCF and CCF+SCF seems to work fine.

Image
Result: 002 of 152 tests failed.

Pretty nice!
User avatar
druellan
Dynamite Dan
Posts: 1466
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2018 7:19 pm

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results

Post by druellan »

FUSE 1.5.6 changelog says:
Z80 flags register is now correct after SCF and CCF (Sergio Baldoví).
So, I decided to rerun the tests, and:

Image
Result: all tests passed
User avatar
druellan
Dynamite Dan
Posts: 1466
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2018 7:19 pm

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quick results

Post by druellan »

ZXMAK2 V2.9.3.8

Image
Result: 006 of 152 tests failed
User avatar
Lethargeek
Manic Miner
Posts: 734
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2019 6:47 am

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quick results

Post by Lethargeek »

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
User avatar
druellan
Dynamite Dan
Posts: 1466
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2018 7:19 pm

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quick results

Post by druellan »

ZX Spectrum Next Firmware 1.21 Core 3.01.00

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Result: 022 of 152 tests failed.
User avatar
Pegaz
Dynamite Dan
Posts: 1209
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 1:44 pm

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quick results

Post by Pegaz »

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:

Image
Last edited by Pegaz on Wed Apr 29, 2020 9:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
PeterJ
Site Admin
Posts: 6854
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: Surrey, UK

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quick results

Post by PeterJ »

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/
User avatar
PeterJ
Site Admin
Posts: 6854
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: Surrey, UK

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quick results

Post by PeterJ »

I missed this first time round [mention]druellan[/mention]. Excellent work!
User avatar
PeterJ
Site Admin
Posts: 6854
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: Surrey, UK

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quick results

Post by PeterJ »

Do you have time to test it on ZXBaremulator [mention]Pegaz[/mention]?
User avatar
Pegaz
Dynamite Dan
Posts: 1209
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 1:44 pm

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quick results

Post by Pegaz »

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/
I think they are from different authors.
The author of SpecIde is Marta Sevillano Mancilla.
As far as I can see, the author of this second emulator is Istvan Novak.
PeterJ wrote: Wed Apr 29, 2020 9:34 pm Do you have time to test it on ZXBaremulator [mention]Pegaz[/mention]?
Sure, no problem, Baremulator goes through all the tests, but I think zx81 already mentioned it...
User avatar
PeterJ
Site Admin
Posts: 6854
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: Surrey, UK

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quick results

Post by PeterJ »

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.
User avatar
Pegaz
Dynamite Dan
Posts: 1209
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 1:44 pm

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quick results

Post by Pegaz »

In fact, [mention]MonkZy[/mention] has already tested the Baremulator, here:

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=752&start=20
User avatar
djnzx48
Manic Miner
Posts: 729
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2017 2:13 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quick results

Post by djnzx48 »

I've tried SpecIde in the past, and it works well, but its accuracy comes at a price. On my machine, it uses a lot of CPU and runs too slowly to be really usable. I don't know if that aspect has been improved since then, but maybe it runs better on other people's computers anyway.
User avatar
PeterJ
Site Admin
Posts: 6854
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: Surrey, UK

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quick results

Post by PeterJ »

A rather left field one for you, with an interesting frame.

http://www.zxspectrum4.net/

ZXSpectrum4

The free version is very limited (The buttons don't work, apart from keyboard). You have to drag and drop files onto the emulator, but the results are good.

Image
User avatar
PeterJ
Site Admin
Posts: 6854
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: Surrey, UK

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quick results

Post by PeterJ »

I also thought I would try the latest version of ZEsarUX from [mention]chernandezba[/mention]. One of my favourites!
The results are the same as with the earlier version tested.

Image
User avatar
PeterJ
Site Admin
Posts: 6854
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: Surrey, UK

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quick results

Post by PeterJ »

No$zx
2 of 152 failed. Link below.

Image

ep128emu (Enterprise / Amstrad and ZX emulator from 2010)
5 of 152 failed. Link below.

Image

The Windows version of RealSpec 0.97.26 gave me 20 fails out of 152. 1 more than the DOS version.

Image

Found this whilst searching this morning. Its a bit out of date, but still some good stuff included:

https://github.com/PhoenixInteractiveNL ... atform-zxs

https://github.com/PhoenixInteractiveNL ... tform-List

Finally, unbiased as we are here, I tested Spud 0.252 and it did very well and passed all tests:

Image

I like the link to infoseek. Just a pity no software to download. The same thing could be done with the OpenAPI to ZXDB as others have done successfully.
User avatar
Pegaz
Dynamite Dan
Posts: 1209
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 1:44 pm

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quick results

Post by Pegaz »

djnzx48 wrote: Wed Apr 29, 2020 11:55 pm I've tried SpecIde in the past, and it works well, but its accuracy comes at a price. On my machine, it uses a lot of CPU and runs too slowly to be really usable. I don't know if that aspect has been improved since then, but maybe it runs better on other people's computers anyway.
Last few versions I tried, work just fine on my old dual core laptop in full screen mode.
If you've only tested in windowed mode, it's still crawling.
Fortunately, full screen mode is the only thing that matters to me, and it works really well there.
I also tested 50hz sync via the hdmi port on the TV and it is great, I would say perfect.
Also, the emulator is rock solid stable, but until it has some sort of GUI, I doubt it will reach a larger user base.
btw, it's really refreshing that after many years, we've got a female author, an extremely talented programer, like we may not have had in the Spectrum scene, since Veronica Megler.
User avatar
RMartins
Manic Miner
Posts: 776
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2017 3:26 pm

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quick results

Post by RMartins »

Is there any test, that we can run, to determine if the floating bus is correctly implemented ?
User avatar
PeterJ
Site Admin
Posts: 6854
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: Surrey, UK

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quick results

Post by PeterJ »

RMartins wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 4:58 pm Is there any test, that we can run, to determine if the floating bus is correctly implemented ?
I have not tried it [mention]RMartins[/mention], but there is a test file here:

http://ramsoft.bbk.org.omegahg.com/floatingbus.html

http://ramsoft.bbk.org.omegahg.com/tech/floatspy.zip

Floating Spy v0.33 - Floating bus test program (C) 2002 RAMSOFT

Edit - Just loaded it up:

Image

Have I found something not in ZXDB [mention]Einar Saukas[/mention]?
zx81
Microbot
Posts: 138
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2018 9:33 pm

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quick results

Post by zx81 »

RMartins wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 4:58 pm Is there any test, that we can run, to determine if the floating bus is correctly implemented ?
The ulatest3 by Jan Bobrowsky, modified by Chris Smith. You can get it from here:

http://dlcorp.nedopc.com/download/file. ... 910926db5b
User avatar
Lethargeek
Manic Miner
Posts: 734
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2019 6:47 am

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quick results

Post by Lethargeek »

zx81 wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 5:27 pm
RMartins wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 4:58 pm Is there any test, that we can run, to determine if the floating bus is correctly implemented ?
The ulatest3 by Jan Bobrowsky, modified by Chris Smith. You can get it from here:

http://dlcorp.nedopc.com/download/file. ... 910926db5b
looks like this one needs strict 48k emulation, not even the 128k in 48k mode
zx81
Microbot
Posts: 138
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2018 9:33 pm

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quick results

Post by zx81 »

Lethargeek wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 5:59 pm
zx81 wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 5:27 pm The ulatest3 by Jan Bobrowsky, modified by Chris Smith. You can get it from here:

http://dlcorp.nedopc.com/download/file. ... 910926db5b
looks like this one needs strict 48k emulation, not even the 128k in 48k mode
The first ulatest3 was for 48k only. Probably, the Smith's version derives from it. Jan published updated versions from his tests, but I can't find it to download now.
Post Reply