Talk:Status flags: Difference between revisions
From NESdev Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
m (Created page with 'The other description on CPU ALL is pretty good, but I wanted to present the flags in a way that conceptually makes clear that in the processor, they are just 6 separate flag…') |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The other description on [[CPU ALL]] is pretty good, but I wanted to present the flags in a way that conceptually makes clear that in the processor, they are just 6 separate flags with no ordering in a byte, and that it's when they're ''copied'' to a byte in memory that the other two bits of the byte are given values. I tried to emphasize that the memory version is a copy, which conceptually avoids one thinking of the copy as the actual flags. | The other description on [[CPU ALL]] is pretty good, but I wanted to present the flags in a way that conceptually makes clear that in the processor, they are just 6 separate flags with no ordering in a byte, and that it's when they're ''copied'' to a byte in memory that the other two bits of the byte are given values. I tried to emphasize that the memory version is a copy, which conceptually avoids one thinking of the copy as the actual flags. --[[user:Blargg|Blargg]] 08:37, 5 November 2010 | ||
:So can you think of some way to divide the description between [[Status flags]] and [[CPU status flag behavior]] so that things aren't unnecessarily covered twice? --[[User:Tepples|Tepples]] 16:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:44, 5 November 2010
The other description on CPU ALL is pretty good, but I wanted to present the flags in a way that conceptually makes clear that in the processor, they are just 6 separate flags with no ordering in a byte, and that it's when they're copied to a byte in memory that the other two bits of the byte are given values. I tried to emphasize that the memory version is a copy, which conceptually avoids one thinking of the copy as the actual flags. --Blargg 08:37, 5 November 2010
- So can you think of some way to divide the description between Status flags and CPU status flag behavior so that things aren't unnecessarily covered twice? --Tepples 16:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
