Retro/pcjs
Watch
1
0
Fork
You've already forked pcjs
 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Fix pushing/popping at the limits of the stack segment

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Jeff Parsons 2015-06-02 15:39:13 -07:00
commit badaaa307e
2 changed files with 6 additions and 7 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

2
blog/2015/06/01/README.md
View file

@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ The Video component installs I/O port handlers for all possible I/O ranges; when
associated I/O operations are redirected to a dummy Card, so that the active Card isn't affected. Here, associated I/O operations are redirected to a dummy Card, so that the active Card isn't affected. Here,
however, that was insufficient. If the VGA is the only installed video card, the VGA ROM expects *NO RESPONSE* however, that was insufficient. If the VGA is the only installed video card, the VGA ROM expects *NO RESPONSE*
on inactive CRTC ports. So I've changed the CRTC I/O handlers to check the Card's fActive flag. This seems on inactive CRTC ports. So I've changed the CRTC I/O handlers to check the Card's fActive flag. This seems
like a safe and logical change, but we'll still have to check for backward-compatibility issues with older ROMs. like a safe and logical change, but I still have to check for backward-compatibility issues with older ROMs.
The VGA ROM programs the card for the first time here: The VGA ROM programs the card for the first time here:

11
modules/pcjs/lib/x86cpu.js
View file

@ -3542,8 +3542,8 @@ X86CPU.prototype.popWord = function()
* There's no such thing as an SS fault on the 8086/8088, and I'm assuming that, on newer * There's no such thing as an SS fault on the 8086/8088, and I'm assuming that, on newer
* processors, when the stack segment limit is set to the maximum, it's OK for the stack to wrap. * processors, when the stack segment limit is set to the maximum, it's OK for the stack to wrap.
*/ */
if (this.model <= X86.MODEL_8088 || this.segSS.limit == this.segSS.addrMask) { if (this.model <= X86.MODEL_8088 || !this.segSS.fExpDown && this.segSS.limit == this.segSS.addrMask || this.segSS.fExpDown && !this.segSS.limit) {
this.setSP(this.regLSP - this.segSS.base); this.setSP((this.regLSP - this.segSS.base) & this.segSS.addrMask);
} else if (off < -1) { // fudge factor } else if (off < -1) { // fudge factor
X86.fnFault.call(this, X86.EXCEPTION.SS_FAULT, 0); X86.fnFault.call(this, X86.EXCEPTION.SS_FAULT, 0);
} }
@ -3570,11 +3570,10 @@ X86CPU.prototype.pushWord = function(w)
if (((this.regLSP - this.regLSPLimitLow)|0) < 0 && (this.regLSPLimitLow ^ this.regLSP) >= 0) { if (((this.regLSP - this.regLSPLimitLow)|0) < 0 && (this.regLSPLimitLow ^ this.regLSP) >= 0) {
/* /*
* There's no such thing as an SS fault on the 8086/8088, and I'm assuming that, on newer * There's no such thing as an SS fault on the 8086/8088, and I'm assuming that, on newer
* processors, when the stack segment is expand-down and the limit is set to the "maximum" of * processors, when the stack segment limit is set to the maximum, it's OK for the stack to wrap.
* zero, it's OK for the stack to wrap.
*/ */
if (this.model <= X86.MODEL_8088 || this.segSS.fExpDown && !this.segSS.limit) { if (this.model <= X86.MODEL_8088 || !this.segSS.fExpDown && this.segSS.limit == this.segSS.addrMask || this.segSS.fExpDown && !this.segSS.limit) {
this.setSP(this.regLSP - this.segSS.base); this.setSP((this.regLSP - this.segSS.base) & this.segSS.addrMask);
} else { } else {
X86.fnFault.call(this, X86.EXCEPTION.SS_FAULT, 0); X86.fnFault.call(this, X86.EXCEPTION.SS_FAULT, 0);
} }