| |
ChristopherJam
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 1409 |
x64 vs x64sc, drive emulation
I'm taking a break from shitposting about assembler syntax to do some actual development, and I just noticed that the fastloader I'm working on works under x64sc but fails under x64 (vice-2.4). Should I care? Just wondering if it means my timing's too tight to be reliable on a range of real drives..
(yes yes, I'll dig some actual hardware out tomorrow to see if it works on the real thing, and I'm also having another attempt at building vice from a source tree. I'll do some emu maintenance one of these years..)
edit- and yes, I had true drive emulation enabled in both. |
|
... 29 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5094 |
"what? works perfecly fine here in x64.exe"
+1 |
| |
ChristopherJam
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 1409 |
Thanks iAN, Oswald; you prompted me to have another stickybeak.
I just nuked my org.viceteam.x64/vicerc (oops, should have thought to try that before), and now Monochrome, Jam Ball 2, and my fastloader test are all fine!
No idea what setting is different at this point; there are a lot of options in the old file that aren't in a freshly generated one. I'll do a binary search if i'm really bored..
Can I have my two weeks back now? Actually, scratch that, at least I can build the nightlies now, which is a good thing in its own right. |
| |
soci
Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 480 |
Jam ball 2 "fails" here as well not too surprisingly in the default configuration because it's 250 blocks and it's started with kernal load from the generated autostart disk image.
So on your x64sc either it's directly injected or you have cartridge attached which can load under I/O. The difference is very likely that these are not set up in the x64 configuration the same way.
Edit: great, that you've found this out as well while I was composing this message ;) Anyway, I'll keep it. |
| |
ChristopherJam
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 1409 |
Sorry soci, I should have mentioned I was using the .d64 with the (not very good) included loader. |
| |
ChristopherJam
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 1409 |
Found the culprit.
IECDevice8=1
had somehow snuck into my vicerc; no idea how/when I managed that.
Also, no idea what it does. Anyone? |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386 |
what about looking it up in the docs? =P |
| |
soci
Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 480 |
It lets you access the virtual drive through the IEC bus signals. Can cause similar troubles as another drive left on the bus when using custom loaders. |
| |
ChristopherJam
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 1409 |
Thanks all, but I'm still a bit lost. Looks like there are at least three cases, namely
a) IECDevice8=0 DriveTrueEmulation=0
b) IECDevice8=0 DriveTrueEmulation=1
c) IECDevice8=1
I gather case (b) emulates the 1541 CPU plus disk orientation, and one or both of the others just interpret the IEC protocol? But how do (a) and (c) differ?
And would not (b) and (c) both have issues with colliding signals from multiple drives? |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386 |
just use the default settings (in the nightly build) - which is "no virtual device traps, true drive emulation enabled, one drive only". anything else will cause problems in one situation or another. |
| |
ChristopherJam
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 1409 |
Will do. |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 - Next |
