761c11a66be0124b91365c39e6b6cc5e70f9dda7
3
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
  AnachronautandClaude Opus 5
|
6f8ad42277 |
Fill the window, let it be resized, and make black black
Three things a person looking at a real screen found in five minutes, none of which the headless tests could have seen. THE PICTURE FILLED A QUARTER OF THE WINDOW. The window opened at the largest screen the device can make, doubled, and then drew a 320 by 200 mode at that same doubling - so three quarters of it was bezel. It now takes the largest whole-number scale that fits: the two modes are exactly a factor of two apart and the window opens at twice the larger, so both fill it exactly, at four and at two. Changing mode changes how sharp the screen is rather than how big it is. Whole numbers on purpose. A 320 by 200 picture stretched by 2.7 has some rows twice as tall as their neighbours, which on eight pixel glyphs is the difference between text and mush. THE WINDOW WOULD NOT RESIZE. It does now, and the picture rescales to whatever it becomes, still in whole pixels and still centred. How big somebody wants a screen is not the machine's business. AND BLACK WAS NOT BLACK. Both the paper and the bezel were tinted towards green, on the theory that a phosphor never was neutral. On a real screen that reads as a fault rather than as character: a background that is nearly black looks like a background that failed to be black. Paper is black now and ink is a neutral grey, because a default should be the unsurprising thing - anything with a point of view about colour is 254 palette entries away and belongs to a program. The bezel is a clearly lighter grey, so what is left over when the window's shape does not match the picture's looks like a bezel rather than like more screen. The two checks that name the waking colours name the new ones. That they had to change is the check working: they say what they depend on rather than assuming it. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01E2JrLzFvuFX9fgi1LDRjrW |
||
|
AnachronautandClaude Opus 5
|
773b0f8add |
Put CosmOS on the screen without changing a line of it
The console is now a display controller as well as a port: it owns a font, keeps a cursor, handles newline, carriage return, backspace and wrapping, and scrolls. That is an ordinary kind of chip - it is what a video terminal's character generator did - and it is the reason this rung needed no changes to CosmOS at all. CosmOS already writes bytes to port 0x00. It writes to BOTH the screen and standard output, which is deliberate. A machine with a screen and a serial line is an ordinary machine, the emulator's standard output is that serial line, and one console drives both. It is also what keeps all 165 recorded results passing under Voyager, and what makes --screen work on the plain SplitBit: there is one console and it drives everything it has. Scrolling moves the video device's origin and no memory. The row arriving at the bottom is cleared because the map is a ring and it holds what was there 128 rows ago; the rows going off the top are not, and that is a hundred rows of scrollback nothing had to keep. The test reads the register back rather than looking at the screen, because a console blitting rows instead would look identical and cost twelve percent of a frame for every line printed. The font is vendored from Hatchet-GPU with a note saying where it came from, since that repository is not part of this one. 135 glyphs in ASCII order, which is the thing that makes it worth keeping - PETSCII's whole inconvenience was that its order was not ASCII's, so a machine using it needed a translation table in front of every string. Here the machine subtracts 32. It is stored one bit a pixel and expanded into tile memory at reset: 1,088 bytes against 16 kilobytes. Voyager gets a keyboard. A window has no standard input, and a machine blocking on it inside a frame would stop drawing and stop answering, so a front end with a window installs a hook that the console calls while it has nothing: it keeps the window alive and hands back a key. The hook has to tell "nobody has typed yet", which happens sixty times a second, apart from "the window has gone", which is the end of input - one value for both would have made the first keystroke look like a closed machine. In line mode the console echoes what it is given, because there is no terminal behind a window to do it and that was always the terminal's job. Tests/video.sh grew from 14 checks to 26, half of them about the console rather than the device: those programs ask the video device for nothing and write bytes to port 0x00 like every SplitBit program always has. Verified by breaking two things - removing the scroll failed exactly the two checks about scrolling, and removing the cursor advance failed exactly the three that depend on it. Two video checks had quietly depended on palette entry 0 being black, which stopped being true the moment a machine woke up able to show text. They now set what they are about to look at, and a new check pins the waking state itself. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01E2JrLzFvuFX9fgi1LDRjrW |
||
|
AnachronautandClaude Opus 5
|
83623a3df3 |
Give the Voyager a screen
A tile engine on ports 0x30 to 0x3F, bringing one bank of video memory registered the way the disk's buffer is. The CPU writes cell indices and the device turns them into pixels, which is the whole reason a screen is affordable at a megahertz: a frame is 16,667 cycles, a full 320 by 200 picture is 64,000 bytes, and a 40 by 25 map is 2,000. A program that changes two cells writes four bytes. The cost of a screen becomes the number of cells that changed rather than the number of pixels on it. Which makes colour depth free, so the tiles are eight bits: an 8 by 8 cell is 64 pixels and each picks independently out of 256 colours, with no per-cell limit of the kind that made a Spectrum two and C64 multicolour four. The low nibble of a cell's attribute is ADDED to every index in its tile, sixteen at a time, so a tile drawn in 0 to 15 appears in any of sixteen schemes without a second copy in tile memory - and a tile wanting all 256 leaves the nibble at zero and gets them. Neither use costs the other anything. Two decisions are arithmetic rather than taste, and both come from the machine having no multiply. A map row is a page whether the mode fills it or not, so a cell address is the row number as the high byte and the doubled column as the low byte with no arithmetic at all; otherwise every cursor move on a 40 column screen would cost a row-times-40 in software. And a palette entry is four bytes rather than three, so entry n is at n times four, a shift. THE MAP IS A RING and the Scroll register says which of its 128 rows is on top. Scrolling moves a register and no memory: blitting a 40 by 25 screen up one line is 1,920 bytes inside one bank, which is twelve percent of a frame even with the controller widened, and a program printing one page would spend six frames shuffling memory. It is now one port write - and the rows that scrolled off are still there, which is where a terminal gets scrollback it never had. The device is part of the machine rather than part of the window. It renders into a buffer that is a pure function of video memory, so the same program draws the same picture with nobody watching; Voyager puts that buffer on the glass and decides nothing. Both binaries take --screen, which saves a PPM when the machine stops, and that is what makes a screen checkable on a host with no display at all. Tests/video.sh checks fourteen named behaviours rather than comparing a recorded image, because a recorded image would say "something changed" and leave which of the palette, the tile, the attribute, the map or the scroll register broke to be found by hand. Verified by breaking three things in turn: the additive nibble failed exactly one check, the scroll origin exactly two, and moving every cell one pixel sideways exactly the four about placement. Tests/docs.sh could not count past nine, which is how a suite of ten scripts reported itself as wrong for the wrong reason. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01E2JrLzFvuFX9fgi1LDRjrW |