'Simulated known Patch: missing_cop0r13 (14-opcode r10/r9 variant)'

Post by **gwald** » January 14th, 2024, 10:31 pm

Hi,

what does "'Simulated known Patch: missing_cop0r13 (14-opcode r10/r9 variant)'" this mean?
It doesn't crash on no$psx or other emulators.

Post by **nocash** » January 15th, 2024, 9:08 am

Most games are applying patches to the original kernel code.
That particular patch is used to fix bug in the interrupt handler of early PSX consoles.

In my kernel clone, the opcodes are at different addresses, so the patches won't work when trying to patch opcodes at wrong addresses. However, the kernel clone includes a list of all known patches, and "simulates" what the patch would do to original kernels (and alongsides writes the "simulate patch" message to the tty log).

In other words: That's nothing to worry about. The only problem would be when encountering an unknown patch.

PS. If you want more info: There's a large chapter about all known kernel patches in psxpsx.

Post by **gwald** » January 21st, 2024, 9:42 am

This is my homebrew, I'm not explicitly inserting anything into the BIOS, I wouldn't know how

I build my executable via the Net Yaroze compiler, then it's packaged up with yarexe (the old combine.exe and exefixup in one) and it out put only that message.

But when I build with PSX.dev's toolchain and use yarexe on that PS-EXE, I get more patch notices on no$psx

BOOTSTRAP LOADER Type C Ver 2.1 03-JUL-1994
Read Directory 1
KERNEL SETUP!
Configuration : EvCB=10h TCB=04h
boot file : cdrom:PSX.EXE;1
EXEC:PC0(80120000h) T_ADDR(80010000h) T_SIZE(00133000h)
boot address : 80120000h 801FFF00h
Execute !

S_ADDR(801FFF00h) S_SIZE(00000000h)
ResetGraph:jtb=8013da58,env=8013daa0
*** Simulated known Patch: missing_cop0r13 (6-opcode variant)
*** Simulated known Patch: suppress pad_card_auto_ack (even if enabled) (with nops)
*** Simulated known Patch: suppress_pad_error_handling (and get pad_enable) (nops)
PS-X Control PAD Driver Ver 3.0

I dont know if it's a bug in my code or yarexe doing something it shouldn't.

Post by **nocash** » January 22nd, 2024, 4:27 pm

I don't understand what you are worried about. The compiler/sdk should certainly apply those patch(es), and the simulated known patch message does just conform that everything went fine.

Post by **gwald** » January 23rd, 2024, 8:33 am

Oh okay, I understand now... the psy-q toolchain injected that... wow.
Cool, thanks for that.