Talk:Z80 Instruction Set

We could probably just use one of the publically available instruction set lists to save the time and trouble of typing everything out again. --Dan 00:28, 22 Dec 2005

Emacs.

Anyway, what you've got so far is not particularly clear, and doesn't really present the important information. I'm thinking of a series of tables something like this:

Oct	Hex	Instruction	States	Clock	S	Z	X	H	Y	P	N	C
100	40	ld b, b	OCF(4)	4	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
101	41	ld b, c	OCF(4)	4	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
102	42	ld b, d	OCF(4)	4	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
103	43	ld b, e	OCF(4)	4	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-

A quick reference for people who actually know what they're doing. For those who don't, these tables should of course be accompanied by detailed descriptions of what the various opcodes actually do.

Any comments before I go and waste a few hours wikifying the rest of the Z80 instruction set?

Perhaps we can be more intelligent about this and not do this by hand? At least have some source file and then we have a nice program we auto-generate the list from? I sure don't want you wasting hours wikifying the instruction set, no matter how good vi might be. ;-) --JasonM 14:13, 30 Dec 2005 (PST)

Please don't use parentheses for anything other than indirection!

FloppusMaximus 12:28, 23 Dec 2005 (PST)

Is providing an octal representation actually useful for anything?

A binary representation would be more useful -- Jib

You're right, it could be. Of course octal is useful -- just take a look at a complete table of the instructions; everything is grouped by eights and sixty-fours. So I know that 1r s = LD r,s, or that 3a6 nnn = ALU(a) nnn, or that 3z7 = RST 0z0, or less obviously that 3c0 = RET c. Much easier to remember than hexadecimal. But that's just me. I think you're right, binary would be better. FloppusMaximus 15:53, 25 Dec 2005 (PST)

Can we just do both? --JasonM 14:13, 30 Dec 2005 (PST)