你们也许想考虑几种选择。 一种是静态的双向译文,如果你将8080部法典编成双向,则可能更容易。 你们看不出你们的法典,就会有问题,因为这不是一件事。 8080年代的资源或董事会的运行与8086位计划按照你的法典运行。 如果你向C翻译,那么你现在或现在就能够把任何目标作为目标,在模拟环境下,不能将目标局限于x86,以涵盖先前的问题。 这并不像......Quite fun实际上似乎一样是痛苦的。

缩略语 我一直想到的是,这样做不是把C译为1.50m的附则。

EDIT:

The problem with assembler to assembler, beyond having to do it again some day, is not the functionality of the instructions (register A = register A + 1), but the flags and the conditional branches (register A = register A + 1, if A == 0 Z = 1 else Z = 0, ...). Based on your understanding of 8080 vs Z80 you know that you are going to have to find or create a tool that can parse that assembler. My theory is that you are more likely to find an assembler to binary than a conversion tool. From binary then you can emulate (at far greater than full speed) or do a static binary translation, ideally to C. With the C you can be sloppy you can have every instruction have code to update the flags and then the optimizer in the C compiler can remove the dead code. Something an assembler is not going to do, leaving you with tons of unused instructions by going straight to x86. I didnt read the manual or too much of the code so it may be easy to handle, but in addition to the individual instructions there is the matter of stack and memory and registers and user interface. If this were to use a graphics/video interface you would have to replace that code wholesale, if the stacks vary between the 8080 and x86 then you are going to have to handle that, and there is likely to be hardcoded memory addresses that you are going to have to deal with. The hardcoded ones are easy the computed ones are much harder, jump tables and the like. How the stack is used for parameter passing and calls may vary between processors and the author may do stack clean up in a way that doesnt translate instruction for instruction. These are all things I hit when I did an assembler to assembler translation, granted it wasnt from a grandparent processor to its grandchild, like the 8080 to x86. I went kicking and screaming but eventually saw that, at least in my opinion, the translation to C covering so many of these problems. I am willing to bet, based on what you said about the 8080 variations from the z80, you may have to write your own assembly parser anyway. Here again the task seems impossibly huge, assembler or static translator when you start to think about how many instructions there are, how many variations. But once you get into it the grinding through instructions is not that bad.

我的理解是,我的答案与问题没有直接联系,问题在于我能够找到这一工具。 我的回答是:如果你愿意找到这一工具的话。 如果你发现这一工具是好的,就会做到。 如果你找到一个使你关闭的工具,那么你可以从那里进行手法调整或进行方案调整。 由于我此前曾几次这样做,我知道,完全翻译可以是一个不错的项目,特别是如果追溯方案是你所关心的,足以向现在迁移。

Trivia: 8086项指示专为便于从808080项翻译而设计。 例如,SHF/LAHF指令的发出就是这种情况。

您能否将Z80来源聚集到二元? 如果是的话,那么,在双电背上,则由“正常”Z80的组装机组成。