Re: A89: Re: 'memory violation'


[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: A89: Re: 'memory violation'




>>No.  According to Interrupts.txt (from the doors zip), it's unused by the
>>OS. I think I read somewhere else (possibly in something by Jimmy
Mardell?)
>>that the Line 1010 and 1111 Emulator stuff refers to some stuff used when
>>there's a coprocessor present. . . it has nothing to do with actual
>>emulation.
>
>Exactly... using these interrupts it's possible to add "extra features"
>to the system, and let their opcodes by Fxxx or Axxx. The interrupt mention
>above would be trapped, thus making it possible to bypass the instruction
>to another CPU thru the I/O ports.

>From the master himself. . . so what causes the Line 1010/1111 Emulator and
Illegal Instruction errors, anyways?  Doesn't that mean that the program has
an opcode which doesn't really exist?  I think that the assembler, under
normal circumstances, wouldn't ever generate these errors with good code
(although a68k is know to mess up).  So if you're getting any one of those
errors, wouldn't it mean that you're actually writing to a section of code
in your program?  And memory violation is writing to a Flash-protected
memory area?




Follow-Ups: