From 64491525b4b3f6fb74a7b4b9d6b34e7ebaaa2278 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Thomas Harte <thomas.harte@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2022 17:01:18 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] Work further to guess at caller's intention for set_state.

Probably I should just eliminate the initial reset, somehow.
---
 OSBindings/Mac/Clock SignalTests/TestRunner68000.hpp | 12 +++++++-----
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/OSBindings/Mac/Clock SignalTests/TestRunner68000.hpp b/OSBindings/Mac/Clock SignalTests/TestRunner68000.hpp
index 66a00e4be..7ddf28d62 100644
--- a/OSBindings/Mac/Clock SignalTests/TestRunner68000.hpp	
+++ b/OSBindings/Mac/Clock SignalTests/TestRunner68000.hpp	
@@ -55,11 +55,13 @@ class RAM68000: public CPU::MC68000Mk2::BusHandler {
 
 		void will_perform(uint32_t, uint16_t) {
 			if(!has_run_) {
-				// Patch back in the status result, since reset will
-				// have affected that.
-				auto state = m68000_.get_state();
-				state.registers.status = initial_state_.registers.status;
-				m68000_.set_state(state);
+				// Reapply all of initial state except the program counter and stack pointers.
+				// Also copy the supervisor stack pointer to the user.
+				const auto state = m68000_.get_state();
+				initial_state_.registers.program_counter = state.registers.program_counter;
+				initial_state_.registers.user_stack_pointer = state.registers.supervisor_stack_pointer;
+				initial_state_.registers.supervisor_stack_pointer = state.registers.supervisor_stack_pointer;
+				m68000_.set_state(initial_state_);
 			}
 
 			--instructions_remaining_;