It looks like Tabor will NEVER be released.

It's a bit more complicated than that. CachePreDMA() and frieds and access error issues are related, but not identical. Consider for example debugging. For a completely harmless instruction like
fmove.d fp0,(a0)
the fpsp may be run if the operand may require denormalization. If a0 is invalid, for example NULL, a debugging tool should show the instruction as the source of the trouble. Unfortunately, if the CPU library does not play well, it will instead show an instruction in the fpsp as fetching the invalid address. As this is run in the supervisor, the task context is lost, and the stack trace is also lost.

Concerning MuFastZero: Depending on its application, it may remap quite a bit more than the zero page, depending on where exec and expansion are placed.

Why it is "wise" not to properly support MMU remapping remains rather opaque to me, really.

Justified and Ancient, oh the irony....

This library, the original C= 68040.library (and ALL 3rd party libraries EXCEPT your mmu.library) don't support virtual memory.

The original 68040.library does not run into this borderline case because it does not exist on the 68040, that's quite simple. The issue exists on the 68060 since it does not, unlike the 68040, attempt to fetch operands into its stack frame. The mentioned call-outs are only available on the 68060, for reasons.

I assume that's one of the reasons (besides your own EGO) why you trolled against FastCache040+ when it was first released (even though the documentation clearly warned users about this).

If it doesn't work correctly because it does not satisfy specs, it does not work correctly. That's as simple as it goes.

What is interesting, is that since you already added the logical to physical address code to the mmu.library you failed to realize this simple test can determine the choice of using the dog slow CachePre/PostDMA() functions or the much faster functions.

"But these functions are wrong - but look how fast they are!". Hey, everyone can write "fast functions" violating the specs. That's not an art. The issue does not only exist for virtual memory. It also exists for any type of MMU remapping, such as MuFastZero or MuMapROM. In both cases, DMA will be run from the wrong addresses.

A common problem is that its CachePre/PostDMA() functions do not work properly - they need to translate logical to physical addresses and not just pass them through. Another typical problem is the exeception generation of floating point exceptions in case its target address is not mapped. In such a case, the 68060.library needs to generate an access error of the right address - namely the address of the EA in the code being emulated. The original mot sources have call-outs ("hooks") to get this work done, but most - if not all (but one) - 68060 "optimizations" simply drop these call-outs and then generate an exception that is coming from the wrong code path, namely within the 68060.library, and not within the user code.

Thus, while I haven't tested, I afraid that we have here a library that falls into the same pitfalls the P5 libs fell into, namely not handling exceptions properly. It is a case that does not typically happen, but in case we would have virtual memory, would fail miserably. The Mu-based libs have been carefully crafted to handle such cases correctly, thus do not generate exceptions by executing code itself, but creating artificial exceptions that (seem to) come from the user code, such that the Os layer can handle them correctly.

Here we go again...

This library, the original C= 68040.library (and ALL 3rd party libraries EXCEPT your mmu.library) don't support virtual memory. I assume that's one of the reasons (besides your own EGO) why you trolled against FastCache040+ when it was first released (even though the documentation clearly warned users about this).

What is interesting, is that since you already added the logical to physical address code to the mmu.library you failed to realize this simple test can determine the choice of using the dog slow CachePre/PostDMA() functions or the much faster functions.

So, far I've never received a single request to support virtual memory (Thanks to many smart users!), but I did quote it as one of the reasons why TurboMMU040+ doesn't support the mmu.library.