Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!panix!.POSTED.spitfire.i.gajendra.net!not-for-mail
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: Fri, 7 Nov 2025 16:54:44 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Message-ID: <10el88k$hqi$2@reader2.panix.com>
References: <hhq63802k7f@news7.newsguy.com> <10eda8d$3pd45$1@dont-email.me> <10el4gt$2cb$1@reader2.panix.com> <qQoPQ.1134549$p8E9.400952@fx18.iad>
Injection-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2025 16:54:44 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader2.panix.com; posting-host="spitfire.i.gajendra.net:166.84.136.80"; logging-data="18258"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com"
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Originator: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Xref: csiph.com alt.folklore.computers:232073 openwatcom.users.c_cpp:3675 comp.lang.c:395123

In article <qQoPQ.1134549$p8E9.400952@fx18.iad>,
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>>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.
>
>Minor correction,  an update to AMD64 was done back in
>the oughts to support some segment limit registers for 64-bit XEN
>(and probably for vmware as well).
>
>See the LMSLE bit in the EFER register for more details.

Interesting.  AMD-only, not Intel.

This is why we can't have nice things.

	- Dan C.