Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Gold 2.7 release for the Vampire accelerators  (Read 45206 times)

Description:

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Chucky

Re: Gold 2.7 release for the Vampire accelerators
« on: March 07, 2018, 03:31:10 PM »
As people defaults Emulation as something to do with software, I call it "Simulation" when done in FPGA.  this seems somewhat accepted.
 

Offline Chucky

Re: Gold 2.7 release for the Vampire accelerators
« Reply #1 on: March 07, 2018, 04:46:27 PM »
Quote from: grond;837044
You clearly have no clue. A CPU built from discrete gates IS a CPU and thus not an emulation. Hence, it is _implemented_ using gates, not emulated.


Still what do you call something that "implements" after documentation instead of a real 1:1 copy of the real thing?  it is not even improved from a 1:1 copy.  but an ESTIMATE of the real thing.. it is as its best an interpretion of how it was designed.

well   guess that's why I call it a Simulation.
 

Offline Chucky

Re: Gold 2.7 release for the Vampire accelerators
« Reply #2 on: March 07, 2018, 05:03:54 PM »
yes.  as it is not done as an exact copy.  it relies on the documentation of the cpu.  and we all know that documentation and real stuff is not always really true.
 

Offline Chucky

Re: Gold 2.7 release for the Vampire accelerators
« Reply #3 on: March 07, 2018, 05:17:45 PM »
Quote from: grond;837053
Which is why we even tested stuff that is documented as "undefined" on 020, 030, 040 and 060. Turned out that the undefined stuff was different on 020, 030 on the one hand and 040, 060 on the other. In such cases it was done as on the 040. You seem to have a very naive idea of how the 080 is being developed...


no  I just want to point out that it is done as an interpretion how it works.  so as it is not a 1:1 replica that is improved.. I have a hard time to call it an "implementation"  more interpretion.

and ACTUALLY! I have a hard time why it is so bad that it is called "emulation" as it ISN'T a 1:1 copy..  most of us does accept emulated stuff anyway?
(I mean.  95% of all my development of DiagROM is done in an Emulator)
 

Offline Chucky

Re: Gold 2.7 release for the Vampire accelerators
« Reply #4 on: March 07, 2018, 05:44:35 PM »
Quote from: grond;837055
The 080 is an implementation of the 68k ISA, not of the 68040 or 060 or whatever. Just like the 060 is an implementation of the 68k ISA.


BUT Motorola had the original information to work from.  not a interpretion of the manuals available.  they had the real thing.



Quote

Why insist on using a technically incorrect term? You can call a "current source" a "voltage source" but it will be wrong. But on the positive side it shows everybody that is skilled in the art that you have no clue.


WHY insist that it is built on something when it is built on an interpretion how it work?  JUST like any emulator is.  it is done after "best effort" but for sure not after the real thing.  for the user there is zero difference.  just different type of layers.     fpga is not emulation. NO!  true.  but the endresult is exactly as if it was.  the only difference was IF motorola replaced their ASIC and went FPGA with a 1:1 copy of their design.  THEN I would accept "implementation"    as the 080.  not a single bit is a real copy of it.

so it is just word-picking..  nothing else
 

Offline Chucky

Re: Gold 2.7 release for the Vampire accelerators
« Reply #5 on: March 08, 2018, 09:08:32 AM »
As I told. word-picking.   even if VHDL is not a real "programminglanguage"  for the user it behaves somewhat similiar.     and that the 080 is bases on a reverseengineering. while when motorola did the 000,010 etc.  they for sure did not start from scratch everytime.   actually a potential bug could be moved from 68000 -> 68060  as it is a lot of "copy and paste"    so  all this emulation vs nonemulation is just picky with words.  the end result when it comes to how the final product behaves is pretty much the same.   emulator or fpga.  as both still is based on a reverseengineering perspective than what motorola could do as they actually have the real data. and I guess if motorla did a open version of a FPGA 68k (any), not much would be the same as TG68 OR the 080.

And that is my very point of this, you can call it emulation, simulation, implementation
 but it would still not be a exact copy of the real thing and in the end. it all narrows down to what you would get with a emulated product, close enough but not the real deal.  simple.     anyway. I agree.  this is off topic.  so.  stepping out of this thread.
 

Offline Chucky

Re: Gold 2.7 release for the Vampire accelerators
« Reply #6 on: April 09, 2018, 07:25:23 PM »
Quote from: sean_skroht;838362

It's a little frustrating because I haven't had any replies to my bug reporting and I'm not sure there's any point reporting on the WHDLoad Mantis bug tracker since they may turn around and say: "It's working for us on all our machines, get Gunnar to fix his core." Plus WHDLoad team take ages to respond to bug reports because there are so many of them.



I was reading on another forum about reported bugs with vampire and everyone reported: NO a bug that only appears on vampire is ONLY the vampteam issue.  as it would not be needed to handle..  (especially when they say it is the most compatible solution)

so yup!  you are right. no idea to report that to anyother place than the apollo-team.