Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register
Groups > openwatcom.users.c_cpp > #3671
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | alt.folklore.computers, openwatcom.users.c_cpp, comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: 16:32 far pointers in OpenWatcom C/C++ |
| Date | 2025-11-07 15:50 +0000 |
| Organization | PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC |
| Message-ID | <10el4gt$2cb$1@reader2.panix.com> (permalink) |
| References | <hhq63802k7f@news7.newsguy.com> <20251103162451.184@kylheku.com> <dRoOQ.1421028$xYr1.1123604@fx14.iad> <10eda8d$3pd45$1@dont-email.me> |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
In article <10eda8d$3pd45$1@dont-email.me>, Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> wrote: >On 11/4/25 08:20, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> writes: >>> On 2025-11-03, Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> wrote: >>>> On 11/3/25 13:24, Lynn McGuire wrote: >>> >>> When I saw this subject line, I thought it was some necroposting to >>> threads from 1990. >>> >>> Someone still cared about segmented x86 shit in 2010 (even if 32 bit)? >> >> There are still people on the internet who swear that the 286 is >> better than sliced bread and refuse to recognize that modern >> architectures are superior. >> > >I was thinking, are there any segmented architectures today? Most >disguise segmentation as a flat address space (e.g. IBM System/370 et.seq.) x86_64 is still nominally segmented; what "code segment" the processor is running in matters, even in long mode. But most of the segment data is ignored by hardware (e.g., base and limits) in 64-bit mode. Of course, it retains a notion of segmentation for a) 16- and 32-bit code compatibility, and b) startup, where the processor (still!!) comes out of reset in 16-bit real mode. Intel had a proposal to do away with 16-bit mode and anything other than long mode for 64-bit, but it seems to have died. So it seems like we'll be stuck with x86 segmentation --- at least for compatibility purposes --- for a while longer still. - Dan C.
Back to openwatcom.users.c_cpp | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Re: 16:32 far pointers in OpenWatcom C/C++ Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-11-02 13:20 -0700
OT: 2010 posts (was: Re: 16:32 far pointers in OpenWatcom C/C++) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-11-03 14:58 +0000
Re: 16:32 far pointers in OpenWatcom C/C++ Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-03 14:24 -0600
Re: 16:32 far pointers in OpenWatcom C/C++ Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-11-03 16:25 -0700
Re: 16:32 far pointers in OpenWatcom C/C++ Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-04 00:26 +0000
Re: 16:32 far pointers in OpenWatcom C/C++ scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-11-04 15:20 +0000
Re: 16:32 far pointers in OpenWatcom C/C++ Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-11-04 09:39 -0700
Re: 16:32 far pointers in OpenWatcom C/C++ scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-11-04 17:14 +0000
Re: 16:32 far pointers in OpenWatcom C/C++ scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-11-04 17:32 +0000
Re: 16:32 far pointers in OpenWatcom C/C++ Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-04 17:38 +0000
Re: 16:32 far pointers in OpenWatcom C/C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-04 21:23 +0100
Re: 16:32 far pointers in OpenWatcom C/C++ scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-11-04 22:04 +0000
Re: 16:32 far pointers in OpenWatcom C/C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-05 08:50 +0100
Re: 16:32 far pointers in OpenWatcom C/C++ scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-11-05 15:15 +0000
Re: 16:32 far pointers in OpenWatcom C/C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-06 08:51 +0100
Re: 16:32 far pointers in OpenWatcom C/C++ Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-11-04 22:17 +0000
Re: 16:32 far pointers in OpenWatcom C/C++ cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-11-07 15:50 +0000
Re: 16:32 far pointers in OpenWatcom C/C++ scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-11-07 16:08 +0000
Re: 16:32 far pointers in OpenWatcom C/C++ cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-11-07 16:54 +0000
Re: 16:32 far pointers in OpenWatcom C/C++ Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> - 2025-11-07 08:22 -0800
Re: 16:32 far pointers in OpenWatcom C/C++ cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-11-07 17:22 +0000
Re: 16:32 far pointers in OpenWatcom C/C++ Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-09 11:15 +0200
Re: 16:32 far pointers in OpenWatcom C/C++ cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-11-10 09:08 +0000
Re: 16:32 far pointers in OpenWatcom C/C++ scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-11-07 17:43 +0000
Re: 16:32 far pointers in OpenWatcom C/C++ Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-11-07 19:40 +0000
Re: 16:32 far pointers in OpenWatcom C/C++ Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-11-08 08:45 -0700
Re: 16:32 far pointers in OpenWatcom C/C++ Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-04 17:12 +0000
Re: 16:32 far pointers in OpenWatcom C/C++ geodandw <geodandw@gmail.com> - 2025-11-04 12:15 -0500
Re: 16:32 far pointers in OpenWatcom C/C++ Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-04 17:21 +0000
Re: 16:32 far pointers in OpenWatcom C/C++ Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-11-04 22:19 +0000
Re: 16:32 far pointers in OpenWatcom C/C++ rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-11-05 00:13 +0000
Re: 16:32 far pointers in OpenWatcom C/C++ cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-11-07 16:46 +0000
Re: 16:32 far pointers in OpenWatcom C/C++ Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-11-08 08:47 -0700
Re: 16:32 far pointers in OpenWatcom C/C++ John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-11-08 21:17 +0000
Re: 16:32 far pointers in OpenWatcom C/C++ Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> - 2025-11-04 08:29 -0800
Re: 16:32 far pointers in OpenWatcom C/C++ Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> - 2025-11-04 08:32 -0800
csiph-web