> For what it's worth, FreeMiNT has always reported correct FPU on Falcon
so I'd say there's pretty good chance Hatari is the wrong one :)
Are you sure? ;) As far as i can tell, both TOS 3.x and 4.x only check wether there is an FPU at all, and set the cookie to value "some 6888x", but dont try to figure out which one exactly.
It also occurs more logical to me that a new processor also has a higher revision number.
Just found on comp.sys.m68k:
example Motorola suggest for detecting 68881/2.
It's not complete, but should give a good idea. The code runs in supervisor
mode: CLR.B FLAG Clear no processor flag
FNOP Detect coprocessor (see note below)
MOVE.B FLAG,D0 Load flag
BNE NOCOP No coprocessor branch
FSAVE -(SP) Save internal state
CLR.L D0 Zero index
MOVE.B 1(SP),D0 Obtain state frame size
CMPI #$18,D0 MC68881?
BEQ ONE Yes
. Code for MC68882
.
BRA START End of 68882 code
ONE . Code for MC68881
So this code checks the frame size rather than the revision number. I guess that should be more clean.
Im asking the folks at Hatari what they think about this.
Greetings
Thorsten
Miro Kropáček <miro.kropacek@gmail.com> schrieb am 8:28 Montag, 16.Februar 2015: