[CCTECH] Interesting tidbit on 6502

From: Loboyko Steve <sloboyko_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Fri Jun 7 09:57:12 2002

Well, it isn't beyond the realm of possibility that an
unimplemented op code or strange code could do
something bad to the states of a chip, potentially
overheating the i/o interfaces.

For example, the PII/III...etc are designed to shut
down certain subsystems when they aren't used (the
floating point, part, for example). Certain software
can force the processor ro keep everything on and get
the chip to its maximum temperature, possibly causing
a machine with marginal construction or marginal
internal/external thermal management to fail.

Also, I was thinking that some of these "smart cards"
might be designed to self-destruct upon execution of
an unimplemented opcode. Maybe a military processor in
a dangerous device might be designed this way also, so
that the computer would crash and immediately
self-destruct before doing something, shall we say,
"unexpected".

So, I don't think my question was THAT unreasonable. I
am working with 75/76 dated chips marked "XC", also,
so I probably DO have the first externally available
silicon or nearly so.







--- Richard Erlacher <edick_at_idcomm.com> wrote:
> I don't see an HCF in the Mot listings of their
> instruction set.
>
> I've heard about this fiction over several decades
> now, and, surely, it must
> be clear to you that there's no way the
> microprocessor can cause that effect
> without the aid of external hardware.
>
> We used to joke about a BEO instruction (branch and
> execute operator) but I've
> never seen the effects of that one either.
>
> Dick
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Loboyko Steve" <sloboyko_at_yahoo.com>
> To: <cctalk_at_classiccmp.org>
> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 11:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [CCTECH] Interesting tidbit on 6502
>
>
> > I'm building a 6800 machine right now and I was
> > wondering about this "Halt and Catch on Fire"
> > instruction. Is this for real. This is a serious
> > question. Is there actually an instruction that
> will
> > overheat the chip?
> >
> > --- Ben Franchuk <bfranchuk_at_jetnet.ab.ca> wrote:
> > > Richard Erlacher wrote:
> > > >
> > > > One of the more interesting features of the
> 6502
> > > is that when you're looking
> > > > at the data bus, it shows you what last was on
> the
> > > bus in those cases where
> > > > there's nothing present to drive the data-in
> bus.
> > > This will give you
> > > > information useful in figuring out what is
> going
> > > inside the chip, and, that's
> > > > what gave me the clues that convinced me that
> the
> > > reason the 6502 is so cheap
> > > > on silicon is that it doesn't use counters for
> its
> > > registers, but, rather,
> > > > uses simple gated latches and uses the ALU to
> > > operate on the addresses during
> > > > phase-2 while operating on the data during
> > > phase-1.
> > > >
> > > > If you look at what's required to build a
> > > synchronous counter large enough to
> > > > support the simple register set in the 6502
> you'll
> > > see that the saved gates
> > > > are sufficient to warrant its design in
> exactly
> > > that way, and that it would
> > > > yield a significant savings in silicon. It
> allows
> > > you to use a relatively
> > > > complex ALU, together with a register set
> that's
> > > essentially a small RAM array
> > > > with an instruction set that never operates on
> two
> > > registers in a single
> > > > cycle. If you build the PC, the address bus
> > > registers, the SP, the two index
> > > > registers, and the accumulator as 8-bit
> registers,
> > > it's easy to see why one
> > > > would do things that way. I'm not sure
> anybody
> > > has ever taken a really close
> > > > look at what happens when each possible opcode
> is
> > > fed to the 6502 as the first
> > > > instruction after a reset and then recorded
> what
> > > the CPU does with it right up
> > > > to the next SYNC, signalling that a new opcode
> is
> > > being fetched, but it might
> > > > be a useful extension on what's been done. Of
> > > course, the 6502 is of little
> > > > interest to persons planning any practical
> > > endeavors, so this fits squarely
> > > > under the aegis of this forum.
> > >
> > > I think that the 6100 (PDP-8 on a chip) fit this
> > > model better.
> > > 8 bit cpu's often used random logic thus don't
> cares
> > > and unimplimented
> > > opcodes
> > > could change actions between cpu mask revisions.
> > > Other than the 6800
> > > HCF
> > > instruction ( Halt and Catch on Fire ) most
> > > undefined instructions
> > > are mostly harmess.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ben Franchuk - Dawn * 12/24 bit cpu *
> > > www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
> > http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
> >
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
Received on Fri Jun 07 2002 - 09:57:12 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:35:04 BST