On 09/05/2012 02:29 PM, Groepaz wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 September 2012, Dave McGuire wrote:
>> On 09/05/2012 06:52 AM, Groepaz wrote:
>>> err, no - the PCE uses a NEC "HuC6280" CPU, which is "6502 like", but
>>> contains a bunch of rather specific extension which can not be found in
>>> any other
On Wednesday 05 September 2012, Dave McGuire wrote:
> On 09/05/2012 06:52 AM, Groepaz wrote:
> > err, no - the PCE uses a NEC "HuC6280" CPU, which is "6502 like", but
> > contains a bunch of rather specific extension which can not be found in
> > any other CPU (eg block copy, paging support)
>
>
On 09/05/2012 06:52 AM, Groepaz wrote:
> err, no - the PCE uses a NEC "HuC6280" CPU, which is "6502 like", but
> contains
> a bunch of rather specific extension which can not be found in any other CPU
> (eg block copy, paging support)
A 6502 with block copy and paging?? Wow. Are these chips
On 05.09.2012 19:19, Masur Jonathan wrote:
> There is also the 65C816 which has a 16-bit mode and many extra
> instructions, which is used in the Super Nintendo Entertainment System
> (SNES) video game console.
>
> It would be great to port SDCC for all variants of the 6502 family,
> although
Le 05.09.2012 12:52, Groepaz a écrit :
>
> err, no - the PCE uses a NEC "HuC6280" CPU, which is "6502 like", but contains
> a bunch of rather specific extension which can not be found in any other CPU
> (eg block copy, paging support)
>
> an actual 65C02 can be found in the NES aka famicom :)
>
> t
During the years I came across chips designated 65C02 which did not have the
bit manipulation etc. "new" instructions. Clearly, there were several
second-sourcing companies, some of them might have chosen to designate a
6502-like design as "C" simply to stress the CMOS technology.
Also, accordi
On Wednesday 05 September 2012, Masur Jonathan wrote:
> > Also, as a remark, the 6502 has a derivative, the 65C02; of which
> > there also exists variants with "secret" (more or less officially
> > supported) instructions.
>
> Exact, the 65C02 has some extra instructions. It is used in the
> Tu
Le 05.09.2012 09:32, Sebastien Lorquet a écrit :
> Hello,
>
> It depends on the port.
>
> [...]
>
> For your port, you can have both (as for mcs51): functions flagged with
> __reentrant will use the stack convention, the others will use the overlay
> convention.
>
Yes, this sounds like the way to
Hi folks,
I am facing some problem using inline functions on mcs51 port. Consider the
following code:
#include
int n[10];
inline int *address (void) { return &n[0]; }
inline int size (void) { return sizeof (n); }
void main (void)
{
memset (address(), 0, size());
}
When it is compiled wi
Isn't the HC08 be similar enough to 6502?
Also, as a remark, the 6502 has a derivative, the 65C02; of which there also
exists variants with "secret" (more or less officially supported) instructions.
It might be also interesting to find out whether WDC
(http://www.westerndesigncenter.com/wdc/ )
Le 04/09/2012 20:55, Masur Jonathan a écrit :
> I am under the impression this is exactly what SDCC does - not using an
> argument stack for maximal code optimisation - at the cost to not being
> able to write re-entrant functions. But this is a very small price to
> pay for something that can
11 matches
Mail list logo
