That's a new name I hadn't heard that fits well: unintended opcodes. I also like unofficial. Undocumented isn't correct because these are quite well documented.
Aah, that's much better and more realistic than my previous assumption that they were "government instructions", something used in the military and similar more secretive contexts, but I suppose they didn't use off-the-shelves components perhaps like today.
These instructions were not intentionally designed and put in there in secret. They're simply an unintended consequence of the "don't care" states of the instruction decoding logic.
The decoder is the part of the CPU that maps instruction opcodes to a set of control signals. For example "LDA absolute" (opcode 0xA5) would activate the "put the result in A" signal on its last cycle while "LDX absolute" (opcode 0xA6) would activate the "put the result in X" signal. The undocumented "LAX absolute" (opcode 0xA7) simply activates both because of the decoder logic's internal wiring, causing the result to be put in both registers. For other undocumented opcodes, the "do both of these things" logic is less recognizable but it's always there. Specifically disallowing these illegal states (to make them NOPs or raise an exception, for instance) would require more die space and push the price up.
See here[1] for example to get a sense of how opcode bits form certain patterns when arranged in a specific way.
I don't think they were "intended" for anything - it's just that was the state of the control lines after it decoded that instruction byte, and combination might do something somewhat sane.
Wiring all the "illegal" instructions to a NOP would have taken a fair bit of extra logic, and that would have been a noticeable chunk of the transistor budget at the time.
A nice guide on how to actually put those ”illegal opcodes” into work is ”No More Secrets”
https://csdb.dk/release/?id=248511
That's a new name I hadn't heard that fits well: unintended opcodes. I also like unofficial. Undocumented isn't correct because these are quite well documented.
Some of those crazy instructions were used for copy protection, back in the day. Those mystery page boundary overflows were entertaining.
Aah, that's much better and more realistic than my previous assumption that they were "government instructions", something used in the military and similar more secretive contexts, but I suppose they didn't use off-the-shelves components perhaps like today.
These instructions were not intentionally designed and put in there in secret. They're simply an unintended consequence of the "don't care" states of the instruction decoding logic.
The decoder is the part of the CPU that maps instruction opcodes to a set of control signals. For example "LDA absolute" (opcode 0xA5) would activate the "put the result in A" signal on its last cycle while "LDX absolute" (opcode 0xA6) would activate the "put the result in X" signal. The undocumented "LAX absolute" (opcode 0xA7) simply activates both because of the decoder logic's internal wiring, causing the result to be put in both registers. For other undocumented opcodes, the "do both of these things" logic is less recognizable but it's always there. Specifically disallowing these illegal states (to make them NOPs or raise an exception, for instance) would require more die space and push the price up.
See here[1] for example to get a sense of how opcode bits form certain patterns when arranged in a specific way.
I don't think they were "intended" for anything - it's just that was the state of the control lines after it decoded that instruction byte, and combination might do something somewhat sane.
Wiring all the "illegal" instructions to a NOP would have taken a fair bit of extra logic, and that would have been a noticeable chunk of the transistor budget at the time.
That's exactly right. There's a really good article about it here: https://www.pagetable.com/?p=39