|Re: [hatari-devel] More TOS 4.x patches for 68040+|
[ Thread Index |
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/hatari-devel Archives
- To: hatari-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [hatari-devel] More TOS 4.x patches for 68040+
- From: Thomas Huth <th.huth@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 20:36:40 +0200
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.de; s=2017; t=1538073402; bh=osWL1PGpNPffHmhi/SsIpNROTMcz2Zl/k5GjuefrlSs=; h=Subject:To:From:Date:From; b=YPwEuFrsoOspyf/BAuNqoZOtg4mAx2l/ex9F2Hr1DvC1wQ/4o0xb3PymfMW7SpPHk R1htESIsfSBuIjjbaiBiNSE1WbFAUV+L60EroEFUFQExeu7pCKXHgNWnKLHfUTIFLc Lw98//l/Su258RRx5zbBXtDqvdlZzoP6fiawPd4I15h/lYvIHOb/3oITYfbR2RAQjz HiOrUPwZcUkMSclnCYo105+Elg/lbtmT1NwWzESdSxYnfZcm3HbQhElD8xhNDbcUzc UdH+wes29H1OlOtCoT/AVv9T5L8KkvMkWhJrmogDKmRkiztcnj9uVVJpX8Y7ypSerA JTZPRrq+VCe5w==
On 2018-09-26 10:14, Thorsten Otto wrote:
> On Mittwoch, 26. September 2018 07:44:27 CEST Thomas Huth wrote:
>> Ok, thanks, I guess we need that in case somebody wants to run
>> something with MMU in 68040 mode on Hatari ...
> One of the patches also sets the correct _CPU cookie because TOS does not
> check for 040.
>> But why did you invert the order of the if-statements in your patch? I
> You mean in the loop that scans the patchlist? Its not inverted, only the
> order of the tests changed. That was done because 040 and 060 sometimes patch
> the same address. Since only one of them is applied, the check for the other
> would compare the memory with the already patched values and then report a
> failure that the patch could not be applied, although it would just skip it.
Ah, ok, now it makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. I've pushed the
patch to the repository now.