On 10/12/2023 4:41 PM, silverdr_at_srebrnysen.com wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 3:44 PM <silverdr_at_srebrnysen.com> wrote: >>> Are 8502 undocumented opcodes generally compatible with 6510 ones? >> On 12 Oct 2023, at 21:03, Craig Taylor <ctalkobt_at_gmail.com> wrote: >> >> For the most part, I believe so - however when doing the C= Hacking Undocumented opcodes I was originally on a 128 - and that may have introduced some of the issues that were reported about the table I created (that, and potentially interpretation - "one of these days" I'd like to do it w/ UTF8 w/o having to resort to psuedo logic symbols). > I see. The reason I ask is that I always thought that C128 compatibility with C64 (and that unfortunately has to include undocumented opcodes) was on the 99-ish percentage level but got hit with an "undocumented don't run as expected" argument. As I don't know much about the 8502, I assumed it's still an HMOS-II, similar to 8500 so it should behave, shouldn't it? I'd be interested in more info on this claim. I was always under the impression the lack of hiding the VIC-IIe extra registers was the culprit. Jim -- Jim Brain brain_at_jbrain.com www.jbrain.comReceived on 2023-10-13 02:00:04
Archive generated by hypermail 2.3.0.