nesdev.com

It was really nice how PAL and NTSC both have almost the exact same line frequency, and that PAL has a color carrier almost exactly 5/4 of NTSC.

I might as well say the 6502 instruction set is awkward. It should've gave both index registers the same addressing modes, and included "stx abs,y" and "sty abs,x". Have non-indexed indirect mode (though later revisions had it). Have add and sub without carry. Have register swap instructions. Being able to add or subtract index registers.

The weirdest thing is that those two instructions are just barely not present... I have to assume it just didn't occur to the designing team.

Given how it ended up (with SHY abx/SHX aby), I expect it's more an error that the 6502 designers never got around to fixing, even in most descendants. Those instructions are on the 65ce02, though, five? designs later…albeit not at those opcodes.

What tokumaru said is that by having an identity table, you can emulate certain instructions like doing arithmetic or bitwise operations with the index registers; it's in this thread.

They're not the accumulator, though. The accumulator is for math. Index registers aren't.
This exchange seems relevant.

(And that thread you linked calls the ZP 256 extra registers.)

The Dendy sounds like a fancy piece of engineering then.

Does the NES have a DRAM refresh circuit or does it force SRAM? Would have been nice if it had a DRAM circuit on-board board so you could put cheaper DRAMs in the carts instead of making us shill for SRAM each time.

The 6502 had one goal, to be $5. There was nothing else to compare it to so Chuck and Mensch weren't forced into adding feature X or Y to compete. Personally I think getting SEI and CLI backwards was their biggest misstep on the 6502. Also Non-Maskable .. sigh... For me Mensch nailed it with the 65816, it has all the goodies, although the 4510 might be a bit better in the end with its built in bank switching op code.

PHY/X PLX/Y would have really helped though.
TXY,TYX also would have been useful.
Not having LDA(zp) has been thorn in my side many a time.
LDA (zp,x) is a total waste and would have been better served as LDA (zp,x),y which would be pure gold.
JSR (XXXX) would save a lot of pain too.

Remember if you really need speed, S is a register too

Yes, I'm still impressed that pirates did a better job of adapting the Famicom architecture to PAL than Nintendo themselves.


What do you mean backwards? Do you think the mnemonics would better match their function if they were switched? The CPU only understands opcodes, not mnemonics, so if this bothers you so much you can always create your own assembler (or modify someone else's) with these two switched. I mean, look at the source code for the NES version of Magic Floor... It's written in 80XX syntax! You can write source code anyway you want, as long as the resulting binary is comprised of valid 6502 opcodes. Unintuitive mnemonics are NOT hardware design flaws by any stretch of the imagination.


Would them? Maybe it's my style of coding, but I hardly ever use the stack to back up values. Even in the NMI handler, where I need to backup all 3 registers, I use 3 ZP locations I have reserved exclusively for this purpose, instead of using the stack.


ByteTable to the rescue:


That I actually miss sometimes, but I often end up finding a way to make Y useful instead of having to load it with 0.


I don't know, LDA (ZP, X) can be useful for accessing collections of streams, such as the different channels of a song.


But then you'd be using all your registers for reading, meaning you could have trouble indexing the destination if not reusing Y or an auto-increment register such as $2007. Not to mention that this would be a pretty slow instruction.


Working with the attribute tables in an 8-way scroller is a pain. Changing the palette mid-frame is a pain. Doing raster effects without IRQs is a pain. Animating patterns in such a short vblank time is a pain. JSR'ing to a JMP (XXXX) is definitely not a pain.


Specially on the Atari 2600, which doesn't have any interrupts, so S can safely be used to load data faster in display kernels.

As far as instruction sets go, sometimes I look at the Z80 set with quite some envy. It may be slow as all hell but it sure has some clever instructions that I could really use in NES programs. For example the bit tests that can test a single bit in a register or in RAM. With the 6502 you can only check the top two bits with relative ease (and even the available addressing modes of BIT leave a lot to be desired) while the rest require you to load from the address and then AND to discard the bits you aren't interested in testing, or LSR to carry if you want to test bit 0.

I could say the same about the individual bit-setting and clearing instructions. No need to load from RAM and then use AND/ORA, and then storing the result. The Z80 even has those DMA-type instructions to work with a large chunk of data (moving it, finding a certain value in a table, etc.)

Sure I could easily make my own standard but the standard set down by Chuck and Bill is the standard we all know and use. SEI Set Enable Interrupt - actually disables Interrupts. Not a 6502 design flaw, nothing wrong with the die, but still Chuck and Bill's misstep

If you have a single NMI source and 100% guarantee you won't renter, then sure use the ZP, its faster. But if you have 4 IRQ sources and an NMI source or might re-enter, use the stack or you are could get lots of pain, the adding 1 opcode to this unrelated function causes the whole screen to become a mess kind of pain. Or make 5x3 store areas if you have the RAM to spare.If you want to make lite threads or "peel off" threading on a 6502 the stack helps. Also when you just need to preserve a register somewhere to recall it 3 lines down or so, having the option to use the Stack over the ZP, which might then get trashed by some other function or maybe in an interrupt if its a shared "general ZP store" would be nice sometimes. Rather than a STX Somewhere, LDX somewhere else, it adds a dependency to your code or lib that could be mitigated with a Stack operation. You could even use a PHY PLX to get around not having a TYX for example for when you have to do the I need what is in X to now be in Y but I really want to preserve A docey-do. I would also be handy for parameter passing, that you use in the function but don't need it now. For example something like
Could become
Yeah byte tables are nice things to have around.

If X is your entity number, and Y is the field you want in the entity then ZP can hold an entity pointer table of which you can easily index into. Gives you the ability to easily make 2 dimensional arrays. It would add 1 clock to the cycle which is a lot faster than doing it the long way at the moment.


Doing a push with the address -1 on the stack then doing a jump is cumbersome, and I come from a machine where I can actually just change the JSR params Still it would be nice if I didn't have to. Also those other things are NES problems not a 6502 problem.

The word "enable" isn't what the E stands for. "SE" and "CL" are just short for "set" and "clear"; SED is the only one of those that's actually intended to enable anything.

For me these were always SEt I, CLear I, SEt D, CLear D, with I and D being the "IRQ inhibit" and "Decimal mode" flags. Pretty straightforward if you ask me.

In fact, the actual 6502 datasheet from 1976 (page 5) refers to SEI as "Set Interrupt Disable", as well.

That works too, if you call the I flag "interrupt disable".