7 Jun
2002
7 Jun
'02
6:21 p.m.
I have a wonderful magazine, EE Times, September,
1988, a special on the 30th anniversary of the
integrated circuit. It's mentioned that the first
design of the 6800 was a yield catastrophe, and
essentially it was completely relaid out from scratch
before it was actually released. Other interesting
stuff, for example, the PDP-8 inspired Ted Hoff on the
design of the 4004.
--- Richard Erlacher <edick(a)idcomm.com> wrote:
Here's a page with some interesting
"miscellaneous
trivia" including the
transistor count, etc. of the 6800 ... I remember
that came up as a question
some time back.
more regarding the 6502 below ...
Dick
<http://www.motorola.com/content/0,1037,121-286,00.html>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Turnbull" <pete(a)dunnington.u-net.com>
To: <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 5:17 PM
Subject: Re: [CCTECH] Interesting tidbit on 6502
I don't know that I have any of the
NMOS 2 MHz 6502A
parts any longer, but I'm
planning a complete re-read of the undocumented
opcodes and their behavior
sometime soon. I figure I can do it with a
serial-port connected 805x family
part, with ports 1 and 2 monitoring the address
lines, port 0 on the data bus,
and port 3 interacting with the clocks, R/W, sync,
rdy, and irq lines. A fast
enough part can download the things it "sees" via
the serial port and can hold
the circuit under test in WAIT until the data is
uploaded to the host. A
timer can drive the Phase-0 clock. That should
provide ample detail about
what, exactly happens on every opcode without a lot
of fiddling with a logic
analyzer. It'll be a while, though ...
> --
> Pete Peter Turnbull
> Network Manager
> University of York
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
On Jun 7, 13:05, Richard Erlacher wrote:
> You may be confused about this. I don't know of
a single NMOS 6502 that
> didn't adhere to the MOS-technology
instruction
set. There's no telling
> whether that included the undocumented
opcodes,
but since Synertek and
> Rockwell used the MOS mask set, I suspect
there
was no difference. The
later
> Synertek parts may have been different since
they shrank the die and got
a bit
> more speed, offering a 4 MHz 6502-C, which was
an NMOS part and worked
> perfectly in NMOS-targeted systems that
didn't
work with the later CMOS
parts.
There certainly were differences between the sets
of undocumneted opcodes
from different manufacturers of 2MHz 6502A parts.
I remember one or two
"clever" bits of software that failed
on some BBC
Micros for that very
reason. Sean is absolutely right to avoid
undocumented codes.