fixed BFINS instruction when width+offset > 32

[jotd666]

This is a corner case of BFINS instruction when width + offset > 32 (width = 0 makes it 32 too)

To test :

D0 = $275

A0 = some address

BFINS D0,(a0){4:0} => A0 holds: X0000027, A0+4 holds: 5XXXXXXX

Without the correction, second longword is incorrect because shifting isn’t taken into account and we get

A0 holds: X0000027, A0+4 holds: 75XXXXXX

UAE core does that shifting, musashi did not. Relevant uae code:

   if (((offset & 7) + width) > 32) {

        bf1 = (bf1 & (0xff >> (width - 32 + (offset & 7)))) |

        (tmp << (8 - (offset & 7)));  <-- here the shifting with offset is performed

        put_byte(dsta+4,bf1);

We had this issue in our application and that change fixed functionnal behaviour

BFTST and BFSET and BFCLR instructions probably have the same issue, but we're not using them in our application with a width > 32 so we didn't took the time to work on a fix.

[agentbooth]

For reference, the MAME code for this block is:
https://github.com/mamedev/mame/blob/54442a7a5b4b69ea667a5ce1051d454bb5d22f43/src/devices/cpu/m68000/m68k_in.lst#L1786-L1792

	if((width + offset) > 32) {
		mask_byte = MASK_OUT_ABOVE_8(mask_base) << (8-offset);
		insert_byte = MASK_OUT_ABOVE_8(insert_base) << (8-offset);
		data_byte = m68ki_read_8(ea+4);
		m_not_z_flag |= (insert_byte & mask_byte);
		m68ki_write_8(ea+4, (data_byte & ~mask_byte) | insert_byte);
	}

Should that mask_byte line also be updated?
mask_byte = MASK_OUT_ABOVE_8(mask_base) << (8-offset);

[jotd666]

Hi, Good find. I think you're right. Not a problem in the code I'm running because of the context I'm in. But definitely to consider. I'm going to compare more code between MAME and musashi. Those selfish MAME bad boys didn't port bugfixes back in musashi, even if musashi was the base of MAME 68k machines in the first place. I guess that the merge with MESS helped MAME to improve the 68020+ instruction set by emulating Amigas and Macintoshes. A thing that musashi could not do by itself unless exposed to a lot of code pieces. I'm going to compare the code more widely if I can, because there may be more corrections. I'm pretty sure that the thing you mentionned is one of them, and there's also other bitfield instriuctions which have the same issue, I'm sure of that by checking WinUAE relevant code. Regards Le mar. 22 mars 2022 à 05:55, J Booth ***@***.***> a écrit :

…

For reference, the MAME code for this block is: https://github.com/mamedev/mame/blob/54442a7a5b4b69ea667a5ce1051d454bb5d22f43/src/devices/cpu/m68000/m68k_in.lst#L1786-L1792 if((width + offset) > 32) { mask_byte = MASK_OUT_ABOVE_8(mask_base) << (8-offset); insert_byte = MASK_OUT_ABOVE_8(insert_base) << (8-offset); data_byte = m68ki_read_8(ea+4); m_not_z_flag |= (insert_byte & mask_byte); m68ki_write_8(ea+4, (data_byte & ~mask_byte) | insert_byte); } Should that mask_byte line also be updated? mask_byte = MASK_OUT_ABOVE_8(mask_base) << (8-offset); — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#87 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AD54CEQPLWCLXPNDOTVSHKDVBFHD3ANCNFSM5QT5SHHQ> . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[agentbooth]

That sounds like a good plan. You will probably find some other fixes in the MAME code that could be helpful.

Yes, it is too bad some of the improvements in MAME were never backported to Musashi. But at this point, there seems to be a significant divergence as to how some of the code is written between the two. But something like these bitfield fixes could have been backported fairly easily.

[jotd666]

I definitely found more fixes in the MAME code, and also found bugs in the MAME code that I have fixed in musashi earlier :) (TRAPT/TRAPCC instructions that are rarely used I admit) I have started backporting fixes in the scalar section (bitfield instructions), and I also noticed mainly enhancements in the fpu section, integrating our work on musashi ( mamedev/mame@27ad7de), but someone got even further and added a ton of other missing addressing modes so I'm going to backport those to musashi as well. Maybe writing a python script to "deface" MAME code and refactor it back to musashi base types & macros (and back) would be useful. At least to be able to compare sources and merge them back & forth easily. Le mar. 22 mars 2022 à 22:52, J Booth ***@***.***> a écrit :

…

That sounds like a good plan. You will probably find some other fixes in the MAME code that could be helpful. Yes, it is too bad some of the improvements in MAME were never backported to Musashi. But at this point, there seems to be a significant divergence as to how some of the code is written between the two. But something like these bitfield fixes could have been backported fairly easily. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#87 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AD54CEWGHB5SJ6ZYZKB5SUDVBI6IHANCNFSM5QT5SHHQ> . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[jotd666]

I have made a python script to change MAME base types to the ones musashi used. It makes diffs much clearer, and merges much easier. And there are a lot of fixes indeed, in pack/unpack instructions too, and a lot of FPU stuff. put MAME cpu files (m68kfpu.cpp and m68k_in.lst) in "in" folder and get reworked files in "out" folder. There are still a lot of differences in the structure (c vs c++, lst vs c) but the code is identical where it's possible Le mar. 22 mars 2022 à 22:52, J Booth ***@***.***> a écrit :

That sounds like a good plan. You will probably find some other fixes in the MAME code that could be helpful. Yes, it is too bad some of the improvements in MAME were never backported to Musashi. But at this point, there seems to be a significant divergence as to how some of the code is written between the two. But something like these bitfield fixes could have been backported fairly easily. —

[MAME2musashi.zip](https://github.com/kstenerud/Musashi/files/8335383/MAME2musashi.zip)

…

Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#87 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AD54CEWGHB5SJ6ZYZKB5SUDVBI6IHANCNFSM5QT5SHHQ> . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[agentbooth]

This is great work that you are doing and would be a real asset to get moved back into musashi!