At 12:19 AM -0400 6/19/00, Erik Mooney wrote:
>>I've always wondered why they didn't just tie off any used opcodes as
>>NOPs to actually MAKE them unuseable.
>As I said, because tying them off as NOPs would increase complexity and
>cost for an actual _reduction_ in chip functionality, which is rather a
>bad idea on the engineering level.
True, you said that; sorry I didn't recall that while responding. That
does make some sense. BUT!
>I'd still maintain that the chip designers knew exactly that those
>operations would result from those opcodes and intentionally left it
>that way.
Then why not document them?
I imagine they may have planned to announce new opcodes in the next
release? :-)
--
//*================================================================++
|| Russ Perry Jr 2175 S Tonne Dr #105 Arlington Hts IL 60005 ||
|| 847-952-9729 slapdash@xxxxxxxxxxxx VIDEOGAME COLLECTOR! ||
++================================================================*//
--
Archives (includes files) at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/archives/
Unsub & more at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/
