Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!mailrus!bbn!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!ius3.ius.cs.cmu.edu!ralphw
From: ralphw@ius3.ius.cs.cmu.edu (Ralph Hyre)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: testing for 65C02 presence
Message-ID: <4069@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: 20 Jan 89 00:29:16 GMT
References: <8901161831.aa18496@SMOKE.BRL.MIL> <367@greens.UUCP>
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 32

># >300:A9 00 1A 00
># >300G

>	SED		;Use known bugs to determine processor type.
>	LDA	#$99	;Load ACC with max BCD value.

Still, none of these will find ALL of the potential differences.

I know of two flavors of 65c02 (Rockwell and NCR, I think), perhaps with
slightly different instruction sets.  Instruction timings may be different as 
well, like one 'fixed' the bug where certain instructions take an extra cycle 
when accessing over a page boundary?

[I believe Ted Medin wrote this...]
In article <546@cod.UUCP>, medin@cod.UUCP (Ted Medin) writes:
>Function		NMOS 6502		65C02
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Indexed addressing	Extra read of		Extra read of last
>across page		invalid address		instruction byte
>boundary
...
>Jump indirect,		Page address does	Page address increments
>address=XXFF		not increment		and adds one cycle

And, how would you test for Zip or Rocket chippedness?

There's still a bit of work left to do.
-- 
					- Ralph W. Hyre, Jr.
Internet: ralphw@{ius{3,2,1}.,}cs.cmu.edu    Phone:(412) CMU-BUGS
Amateur Packet Radio: N3FGW@W2XO, or c/o W3VC, CMU Radio Club, Pittsburgh, PA
"You can do what you want with my computer, but leave me alone!8-)"
--