f9b08cf7f9fb498e286ed75af561f3bdfd7fbb36
55
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 |
||
|
AnachronautandClaude Opus 5
|
4c3eac8d9c |
Widen the memory controller's path to sixteen bits
The controller now reaches bank memory two bytes at a time, so a transfer whose source, destination and length are all even moves two bytes a cycle between banks and one within a bank - twice what each was. A 256 byte block between banks falls from 257 cycles to 129. Alignment is required all three ways because a word is read at an even address and written at an even address; an odd anything would mean shifting bytes across word boundaries to line them up, which is a different design. A misaligned transfer falls back to the byte a cycle it cost before, so nothing already written got slower. THE CPU DOES NOT CHANGE. It still sees eight bits, a Data Pointer still addresses a byte, and no instruction means anything different. This is a peripheral getting faster, which is why it is worth doing now rather than after more is built on top of it. The rule is deliberately visible rather than smoothed over: aligning a buffer costs nothing and halves what moving it costs, and a cost a program cannot see is a cost it cannot avoid. Tests/cycles.sh is new, and is the test the Test Manual has always said this kind of change would need - run.sh strips the cycle count from every recorded result, so nothing else in the suite can see any of this. It pins the RATE rather than a total: each case runs twice from programs whose instructions are identical but for the byte written to the Command port, once asking for the transfer and once for GuardOff, which costs nothing beyond the port write. The difference is the transfer and nothing else. Verified by disabling the widening, which failed exactly the three aligned cases and left the five misaligned ones passing. The Programming Manual gains a section saying what a transfer costs, which it never said at all - it only promised a transfer does not wait, which is a different claim and could be read as promising it is free. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01E2JrLzFvuFX9fgi1LDRjrW |
||
|
AnachronautandClaude Opus 5
|
c3c2451afe |
Say what the strict build and the sanitizers actually establish
Three claims in the Test Manual were true enough to pass and loose enough to mislead. The headline said the two assemblers produce identical bytes and the two filesystems produce identical disks, with no qualifier. That reads as universal and is not: it is evidence about the corpus assembled and the operations performed. The detailed sections already said so; the headline now says so too, because a document arguing about what evidence is worth cannot overstate its own. "Compiles under strict ISO C" omitted -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=700. The check is strict C11 with the POSIX interfaces the code uses explicitly selected - realpath, strdup, dirname and getopt - not freestanding ISO C, and the flag is part of the check rather than a hole in it. And the sanitizer section leaned on AddressSanitizer's junk fill, which is a toolchain default this build does not configure and which buys almost nothing here anyway: there are six heap allocations in the whole repository, all in the assembler, the largest a deliberate calloc, and the machine's own memories are static arrays the sanitizers neither fill nor bound-check. That last part is the overrun blind spot seen from the other side, so it now points at it. The same claim is corrected in the makefile, where it originated. Found by ChatGPT reviewing the manual. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01E2JrLzFvuFX9fgi1LDRjrW |
||
|
AnachronautandClaude Opus 5
|
d6bc416698 |
Write the Test Manual, and make the suite check it
The test system had grown to seven scripts making five genuinely different kinds of claim, and nothing said which was which. A recorded transcript and a byte-for-byte comparison against a second implementation both print [ok ] and are worth wildly different amounts, so the fourth manual exists to say so: what each script can and cannot answer, why every determinism rule is there, how to add a test, and - the part written nowhere else - where the suite is blind. That last section is the reason for the document. Three buffer overruns into adjacent variables were all found by a person using the machine and none by the suite, the sanitizers cannot see them because emulated Data Memory is one legitimate host array, and there is no second opinion about the CPU at all. A document listing only strengths teaches the wrong lesson. The bullets describing each script move out of the README, so docs.sh now reads the manual for them, and five more numbers in it are settled from the source rather than trusted: the shape of the manifest, the xfail count, how many fixture disks makedisks.sh builds, how large the lint baseline is, and the tool count in either document. Each of the new checks was broken on purpose and watched to report before being kept, which is the discipline the manual itself argues for. Also drops the stale "70 instructions" from instructiontable.py's docstring. There are 72, and a number that carries no meaning is better removed than corrected. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01E2JrLzFvuFX9fgi1LDRjrW |