http://davidgom.co.cc/z80table.html

I used a Z80 Instructions Table at ticalc.org, which was full of errors and problems and converted it to HTML, fixed errors, uploaded it and host it.

Found any error?
Like it?
Any ideas?

Thanks!
Nice, but the second and subsequent tables are sorta useless because they don't mention the prefix byte. Sad

Edit: Ohhh, it's in the first table. You should make that more clear. Also, can you make the colors a little less eye-rending?
KermMartian wrote:
Nice, but the second and subsequent tables are sorta useless because they don't mention the prefix byte. Sad

Edit: Ohhh, it's in the first table. You should make that more clear. Also, can you make the colors a little less eye-rending?


Eye-rending colours, i will fix that
Thanks for that. I'd also prefer if it was a little easier to figure out the equivalent byte for the opcode, namely, make it clear whether columns or rows are the major nibble and minor nibble. Obviously as a seasoned ASM coder, I know a few examples (like C9=ret) that help, plus I assumed that the opcodes increased in reading order, but as-is it's a bit ambiguous.
KermMartian wrote:
Thanks for that. I'd also prefer if it was a little easier to figure out the equivalent byte for the opcode, namely, make it clear whether columns or rows are the major nibble and minor nibble. Obviously as a seasoned ASM coder, I know a few examples (like C9=ret) that help, plus I assumed that the opcodes increased in reading order, but as-is it's a bit ambiguous.


MouseOver would display the opcode for them would be OK?
ScoutDavid wrote:
KermMartian wrote:
Thanks for that. I'd also prefer if it was a little easier to figure out the equivalent byte for the opcode, namely, make it clear whether columns or rows are the major nibble and minor nibble. Obviously as a seasoned ASM coder, I know a few examples (like C9=ret) that help, plus I assumed that the opcodes increased in reading order, but as-is it's a bit ambiguous.


MouseOver would display the opcode for them would be OK?
Sure, that would be perfect.
Why not label the rows 0x-Fx and the columns x0-xF?
benryves wrote:
Why not label the rows 0x-Fx and the columns x0-xF?
Suggestion heartily seconded. This would make a big difference.
Yeah, maybe it would, but it would be too much work and most people just got used to looking at it this way.
ScoutDavid wrote:
Yeah, maybe it would, but it would be too much work and most people just got used to looking at it this way.
Too much work? Shock It would be editing exactly 4*(16+16) = 128 cells. Sad
KermMartian wrote:
ScoutDavid wrote:
Yeah, maybe it would, but it would be too much work and most people just got used to looking at it this way.
Too much work? Shock It would be editing exactly 4*(16+16) = 128 cells. Sad


There are 6 tables, and I would have to rewrite them all...
ScoutDavid wrote:
KermMartian wrote:
ScoutDavid wrote:
Yeah, maybe it would, but it would be too much work and most people just got used to looking at it this way.
Too much work? Shock It would be editing exactly 4*(16+16) = 128 cells. Sad


There are 6 tables, and I would have to rewrite them all...
Oh, then 6*(16+16) = 192 cells. I believe Ben is just talk about the headers of each row and column, not all 256*6 cells.
  
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.

» Go to Registration page
Page 1 of 1
» All times are UTC - 5 Hours
 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Advertisement