Hi, I’m trying to understand the recent PR to fix bogus cycle counts being reported.
I can’t workout from the comment how to reproduce the sawtooth effect described.
Can someone explain please?
It looks like it’s to correct the cycles reported when m68k_end_timeslice() is used ?
But I think it breaks the value reported when m68k_modify_timesclice() is used.
Would a better fix be to change m68k_end_timeslice() from
m68ki_initial_cycles = CYCLES(); to
m68ki_initial_cycles -= CYCLES();?
sorry if I’ve completely misunderstood what it’s fixing
Hi, I’m trying to understand the recent PR to fix bogus cycle counts being reported. I can’t workout from the comment how to reproduce the sawtooth effect described. Can someone explain please?
It looks like it’s to correct the cycles reported when m68k_end_timeslice() is used ? But I think it breaks the value reported when m68k_modify_timesclice() is used. Would a better fix be to change m68k_end_timeslice() from m68ki_initial_cycles = CYCLES(); to m68ki_initial_cycles -= CYCLES();?
sorry if I’ve completely misunderstood what it’s fixing