83623a3df30a4074ac9e2c4660f62dfe966ad8ef
2
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
  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 |
||
|
AnachronautandClaude Opus 5
|
e3ef25e3b3 |
Split the machine from its front end, and add Voyager
The Segan Voyager is the same SplitBit with a screen and a speaker instead of a terminal, and this is the rung that makes there be two of them at all. Everything that is actually the machine - the CPU, the controller, the devices, the run loop, the reporting - moves to machine.c, and each front end brings one file of its own. emulator.c is now sixty lines of argument handling and a three line loop. The machine runs in SLICES rather than to completion, because that is the cut a window needs: run a slice, present a frame, run another. A terminal runs slices until the machine stops. Both loops are three lines, which is why the cut is there rather than anywhere else. At this stage Voyager's window is empty. There is no video device yet and inventing a temporary way to draw would mean building something to throw away. PLAIN MAKE STILL WORKS WITH NO GRAPHICS LIBRARY. Raylib is probed by compiling and linking against it rather than by looking for a file, because a header with no library behind it passes a file check and then fails at link time. Where it is missing, make says so once and builds everything else - the machine, the assembler, the disk tool, the linter and the whole suite. A project about a small understandable CPU should not need OpenGL to run its tests. That nearly broke here: make strict globs Source/Emulator/*.c, so it would have tried to compile voyager.c and failed on precisely the machines the split exists to support, and this machine has Raylib so nothing would have caught it. Tests/voyager.sh runs the WHOLE MANIFEST through Voyager and holds it to the recorded results SplitBit is held to. Not that the two look alike: that one satisfies every recording the other does, byte for byte, exit status included. It reuses run.sh, which now takes the machine from SPLITBIT_EMULATOR, rather than keeping a second copy of the runner that would drift. Voyager not being built is not a failure - it says so and passes. Verified both ways. Made Voyager print one extra line, and 114 of 165 failed: exactly the tests that run the emulator, with the 51 assemble-only and xfail cases correctly untouched. Removed the binary, and the script skipped. Built with HAVE_RAYLIB=no, and everything else still built and checked clean. --headless is taken out of the arguments in voyager.c rather than in the shared parser, which should not learn about a window only one binary has. It exists so the suite can run this binary at all: a front end that could only be exercised by a person looking at it would be a front end nothing checks. loadFile takes a const char * now, which it always should have. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01E2JrLzFvuFX9fgi1LDRjrW |