int m_pload(WORD inst, WORD siz, WORD extension);
int m_pmove(WORD inst, WORD siz);
int m_pmovefd(WORD inst, WORD siz);
-int m_ptest(WORD inst, WORD siz);
+int m_ptest(WORD inst, WORD siz, WORD extension);
+int m_ptestr(WORD inste, WORD siz);
+int m_ptestw(WORD inste, WORD siz);
int m_ptrapcc(WORD inst, WORD siz);
int m_ploadr(WORD inst, WORD siz);
int m_ploadw(WORD inst, WORD siz);
if ((a0exattr & DEFINED) == 0)
return error("constant value must be defined");
+ if (a0exval>7)
+ return error("constant value must be between 0 and 7");
+
inst = (2 << 3) | (uint16_t)a0exval;
break;
}
//
-// ptestr, ptestw (68030)
+// ptestr, ptestw (68030, 68040)
+// TODO See comment on m_pmove about 68851 support
+// TODO quite a good chunk of the 030 code is copied from m_pload, perhaps merge these somehow?
//
-int m_ptest(WORD inst, WORD siz)
+int m_ptest(WORD inst, WORD siz, WORD extension)
{
- CHECKNO30;
+ uint64_t eval;
+
+ if (activecpu != CPU_68030 && activecpu != CPU_68040)
+ return error(unsupport);
if (activecpu == CPU_68030)
- return error("Not implemented yet.");
- else if (activecpu == CPU_68040)
+ {
+ inst |= am1;
+ D_word(inst);
+
+ switch (am0)
+ {
+ case CREG:
+ if (a0reg == KW_SFC - KW_SFC)
+ extension |= 0;
+ else if (a0reg == KW_DFC - KW_SFC)
+ extension |= 1;
+ else
+ return error("illegal control register specified");
+ break;
+ case DREG:
+ extension |= (1 << 3) | a0reg;
+ break;
+ case IMMED:
+ if ((a0exattr & DEFINED) == 0)
+ return error("constant value must be defined");
+
+ if (a0exval > 7)
+ return error("constant value must be between 0 and 7");
+
+ extension |= (2 << 3) | (uint16_t)a0exval;
+ break;
+ }
+
+ // Operand 3 must be an immediate
+ CHECK_COMMA
+
+ if (*tok++ != '#')
+ return error("ptest level must be immediate");
+
+ // Let's be a bit inflexible here and demand that this
+ // is fully defined at this stage. Otherwise we'd have
+ // to arrange for a bitfield fixup, which would mean
+ // polluting the bitfields and codebase with special
+ // cases that might most likely never be used.
+ // So if anyone gets bit by this: sorry for being a butt!
+ if (abs_expr(&eval) != OK)
+ return OK; // We're returning OK because error() has already been called and error count has been increased
+
+ if (eval > 7)
+ return error("ptest level must be between 0 and 7");
+
+ extension |= eval << 10;
+
+ // Operand 4 is optional and must be an address register
+
+ if (*tok != EOL)
+ {
+ CHECK_COMMA
+
+ if ((*tok >= KW_A0) && (*tok <= KW_A7))
+ {
+ extension |= (1 << 8) | ((*tok++ & 7) << 4);
+ }
+ else
+ {
+ return error("fourth parameter must be an address register");
+ }
+ }
+
+ ErrorIfNotAtEOL();
+
+ D_word(extension);
+ return OK;
+ }
+ else
return error("Not implemented yet.");
return ERROR;
}
+int m_ptestr(WORD inst, WORD siz)
+{
+ return m_ptest(inst, siz, (1 << 15) | (0 << 9));
+}
+
+int m_ptestw(WORD inst, WORD siz)
+{
+ return m_ptest(inst, siz, (1 << 15) | (1 << 9));
+}
+
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//
// 68020/30/40/60 instructions
if (!(activefpu & (FPU_68040 | FPU_68060)))
return error("Unsupported in current FPU");
- return error("Not implemented yet.");
-
-#if 0
- if (activefpu == FPU_68040)
- return gen_fpu(inst, siz, B8(01100100), FPU_P_EMUL);
- else
- return error("Unsupported in current FPU");
-#endif
+ return gen_fpu(inst, siz, B8(01100100), FPU_FPSP);
}
if (!(activefpu & (FPU_68040 | FPU_68060)))
return error("Unsupported in current FPU");
- return error("Not implemented yet.");
-
-#if 0
- if (activefpu == FPU_68040)
- return gen_fpu(inst, siz, B8(01100100), FPU_P_EMUL);
- else
- return error("Unsupported in current FPU");
-#endif
+ return gen_fpu(inst, siz, B8(01100100), FPU_FPSP);
}