TIS-100: An emulator for a CPU that doesn't exist

#1

Post by EvilTrout » Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 3:23 AM UTC

TIS-100: An emulator for a CPU that doesn't exist
eviltrout.com

Re: TIS-100: An emulator for a CPU that doesn't exist

#2

Post by DanWaterworth » Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 5:47 AM UTC

It would be interesting to implement the emulator using the PyPy toolchain.

Re: TIS-100: An emulator for a CPU that doesn't exist

#3

Post by tehbeard » Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 7:58 AM UTC

To be fair the TIS-100 runs slower in the game to improve the visuals. To let you see (albeit in a blur at higher speeds) your code run rather than a click button, instant "level complete" popup. (note: I don't own TIS-100 yet, but it's fairly similar to their other game spacechem)

Re: TIS-100: An emulator for a CPU that doesn't exist

#4

Post by kyberias » Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 8:23 AM UTC

Remember that notch's silly space game with a simulated processor and the huge influx of emulators and whatnot after the announcement?

Re: TIS-100: An emulator for a CPU that doesn't exist

#5

Post by LoSboccacc » Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 8:33 AM UTC

oh this brings up memories of corewars and redcode

Re: TIS-100: An emulator for a CPU that doesn't exist

#6

Post by Zardoz84 » Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 10:31 AM UTC

kyberias wrote: post #4

Remember that notch's silly space game with a simulated processor and the huge influx of emulators and whatnot after the announcement?

There is a lot of DCPU-16 emulators on the wild. Also, there is a few successor games projects of 0x10c that uses DCPU-16 or his own cpu's

Re: TIS-100: An emulator for a CPU that doesn't exist

#7

Post by SIGALARM » Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 10:32 AM UTC

it's only a matter of time before someone runs linux on it.

Re: TIS-100: An emulator for a CPU that doesn't exist

#8

Post by hthh » Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 10:41 AM UTC

I too wrote a TIS-100 simulator in C ( https://github.com/hthh/tis100sim ) - it's interesting to compare styles.

(I get a bunch of errors on OS X unless I change "CC=gcc" to "CC=clang", btw)

Re: TIS-100: An emulator for a CPU that doesn't exist

#9

Post by jeffreyrogers » Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 11:14 AM UTC

hthh wrote: post #8

I too wrote a TIS-100 simulator in C ( https://github.com/hthh/tis100sim ) - it's interesting to compare styles. (I get a bunch of errors on OS X unless I change "CC=gcc" to "CC=clang", btw)

That gcc error is strange, since I think in the recent versions of OS X gcc is just an aliases for clang.

Here's my output of `gcc --version` on OS X 10.10:

    Configured with: --prefix=/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/usr --with-gxx-include-dir=/usr/include/c++/4.2.1
    Apple LLVM version 6.1.0 (clang-602.0.53) (based on LLVM 3.6.0svn)
    Target: x86_64-apple-darwin14.3.0
    Thread model: posix

edit: also, should've said that's really cool and thanks for posting your source code.

Re: TIS-100: An emulator for a CPU that doesn't exist

#10

Post by hthh » Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 11:20 AM UTC

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #9

hthh wrote: post #8

I too wrote a TIS-100 simulator in C ( https://github.com/hthh/tis100sim ) - it's interesting to compare styles. (I get a bunch of errors on OS X unless I change "CC=gcc" to "CC=clang", btw)

That gcc error is strange, since I think in the recent versions of OS X gcc is just an aliases for clang. Here's my output of `gcc --version` on OS X 10.10: Configured with: --prefix=/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/usr --with-gxx-include-dir=/usr/include/c++/4.2.1 Apple LLVM version 6.1.0 (clang-602.0.53) (based on LLVM 3.6.0svn) Target: x86_64-apple-darwin14.3.0 Thread model: posix edit: also, should've s…

My GCC seems to be GCC (don't remember why - I guess I installed it for something). I can also make it build using "--std=c99" (but that makes the undefined behavior mentioned in issue #2 show up, which is why I went with clang).

  gcc: warning: couldn't understand kern.osversion '14.3.0
  gcc (GCC) 4.8.2
  Copyright (C) 2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
  This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.  There is NO
  warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.