Posted By
Gaia
on 2006-02-07
16:31:02
|  Re: XAA/ANE again
OK, I have just tested ANE/XAA ($8B)... on my computer at least it is *almost* irrelevant wheather the screen is blank or not, I even tested in slow mode... it looked very similar all around except sometimes when tested with screen on, there were random bit "errors" (like 1 bit every 4 kb or so).
However, the currently known formula (X & #imm & (AC|#$EE) does not seem to approximate the real figures that well. To give you an idea, here's the beginning of the dump from my machine:
M2100
>2100 EE EF EE EF EE EF EE EF :®¯®¯®¯®¯
>2108 FE FF FE FF FE FF FE FF :¾¿¾¿¾¿¾¿
>2110 FE FF FE FF FE FF FE FF :¾¿¾¿¾¿¾¿
>2118 FE FF FE FF FE FF FE FF :¾¿¾¿¾¿¾¿
>2120 EE EF EE EF EE EF EE EF :®¯®¯®¯®¯
>2128 FE FF FE FF FE FF FE FF :¾¿¾¿¾¿¾¿
>2130 FE FF FE FF FE FF FE FF :¾¿¾¿¾¿¾¿
>2138 FE FF FE FF FE FF FE FF :¾¿¾¿¾¿¾¿
>2140 EE EF EE EF EE EF EE EF :®¯®¯®¯®¯
>2148 FE FF FE FF FE FF FE FF :¾¿¾¿¾¿¾¿
>2150 FE FF FE FF FE FF FE FF :¾¿¾¿¾¿¾¿
>2158 FE FF FE FF FE FF FE FF :¾¿¾¿¾¿¾¿
With the formula known until now, the area $2108-$210F is identical to that of $2100.
It looks like the formula is more of something like:
AC = (X AND #imm AND (AC OR #$EE)) OR ( X AND #imm AND ((AC*2) AND #$10))
...at least on my plus/4  Of course I need to look further because even this formula does not look 100% correct and stable...
|
