Spectrum Computing

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

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.

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.

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


Result: 002 of 152 tests failed.

Pretty nice!

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:


Result: all tests passed

ZXMAK2 V2.9.3.8


Result: 006 of 152 tests failed

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

ZX Spectrum Next Firmware 1.21 Core 3.01.00











Result: 022 of 152 tests failed.

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:

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 missed this first time round [mention]druellan[/mention]. Excellent work!

Do you have time to test it on ZXBaremulator [mention]Pegaz[/mention]?

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...

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.

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

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=752&start=20

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.

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.

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.

No$zx
2 of 152 failed. Link below.



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



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



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:



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.

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.

Is there any test, that we can run, to determine if the floating bus is correctly implemented ?

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:



Have I found something not in ZXDB [mention]Einar Saukas[/mention]?

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

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

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.