[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 6502 illegal opcodes questions



Eric Smith wrote:
"Michael J. Mahon" <mjmahon@aol.com> writes:

The 6502 was already a much less expensive processor than its
competitors, because of a mask retouching technique MOS Technology
developed that saved mask iterations.


I saw that claim on Wikipedia.  Is there any published reference?

I saw it in an interview published on the web, but I apparently
didn't bookmark it.  I'll let you know if I find it...

Stephen Harris wrote:

With the 6502 essentially not having a microcode level, this
optimisation is exposed to the programmer.


The PLA is essentially equivalent to microcode.  The difference is
that it is addressed by the instruction register and a few state bits,
rather than a micro-PC.

Exactly.  I once worked on a machine that had an unusual "distributed
PLA" approach:  the opcode register and state counter were bussed
along the backplane of the machine, and each opcode (or small family
of similar ops) was decoded on the plugin card(s) that implemented
it.  It was the only machine I ever saw where individual ops could
be removed from the machine by unplugging their cards!

-michael

Music synthesis for 8-bit Apple II's!
Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/

"The wastebasket is our most important design
tool--and it is seriously underused."