Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #51028
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.forth |
| Subject | Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] |
| Date | 2016-09-16 08:37 +0000 |
| Organization | Institut fuer Computersprachen, Technische Universitaet Wien |
| Message-ID | <2016Sep16.103757@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <BKudnWFihPi6YyTKnZ2dnUU7-N_NnZ2d@supernews.com> <f14aebd4-a311-4d91-b84e-225054af6583@googlegroups.com> <b63706c1-c0dc-4a12-9a51-775655350437@googlegroups.com> <22d8f492-500f-4648-99e6-9950ddca99e4@googlegroups.com> <nrg732$nht$1@dont-email.me> |
rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
>On 9/16/2016 2:57 AM, lawrencedo99@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 2:47:00 PM UTC+12, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Everybody else in the world understood that the whole purpose of the x86
>>> was to address more than 64KB and they figured out how to use the segment
>>> registers to do this.
>>
>> x86 segmentation was an absolutely stupid pain in the bum. Other architectures (e.g. 68000-family) figured out how to address more memory *without* segmentation. And as a bonus, because you were using linear 32-bit addresses to begin with, the transition to full 32-bit processors (68020 and later) was fairly painless.
>
>Sure, it is easy to look back from this high vantage point and say,
>"They should have gone this way".
It was also obvious at the time, as evidenced by the fact that
everybody else (68k, Z8000, NS32K) provided longer addresses; OTOH,
Intel was first to market in the beyond-8-bit area, which got them the
IBM PC design win, so in a way their decisions were right.
>But Intel had an 8 bit processor they
>wanted to be instruction and register compatible with while Motorola
>make little effort to be compatible with their existing 8 bit processors.
Intel 8086 was not binary compatible with the 8080, but instead was
assembly-source compatible. Not sure how much this helped, but
Intel's focus on compatibility certainly helped later (80286, 386, and
especially 486 when the RISCs looked like the future), and when they
strayed from it (IA-64), they failed.
Anyway, Intel could have achieved assembly-source compatibility while
still providing a flat address space.
>In the end Intel ended up with a full 32 bit CPU with 32 bit addressing
>and a 64 bit CPU with 64 bit addresses. The purpose of the segment
>registers now is not so much a way to utilize a large address space, but
>to separate the various memory sections and support security.
The only purpose of segment registers (in 64-bit mode) is to provide
thread-local storage. Instead of extending segment descriptors for
64-bit use (which would have required more space), segments in 64-bit
mode were reduced in capability and can no longer be used for
security; they have not been used for security before that, anyway.
Segment fans always whine about security; paging goes home and fscks
the system:-).
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2016: http://www.euroforth.org/ef16/
Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Hard Forth lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 01:04 -0700
Hard Forth Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 01:12 -0700
Re: Hard Forth lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 01:17 -0700
Re: Hard Forth Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 01:54 -0700
Re: Hard Forth lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 07:26 -0700
Re: Hard Forth Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 17:07 +0200
Re: Hard Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 17:37 -0400
Re: Hard Forth Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 14:51 -0700
Re: Hard Forth lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-15 23:43 -0700
Re: Hard Forth Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 01:16 -0700
Re: Hard Forth lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 01:20 -0700
Re: Hard Forth julian.fondren@endurance.com - 2016-08-21 01:36 -0700
Re: Hard Forth Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 01:41 -0700
Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-08-21 14:16 -0500
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 13:50 -0700
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-21 19:46 -0700
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-08-21 22:29 -0500
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 07:03 +0300
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-08-21 23:13 -0500
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 07:18 +0300
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-21 22:08 -0700
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-08-22 00:55 -0500
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-21 23:27 -0700
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 06:00 -0400
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 23:30 -0700
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-22 00:04 -0700
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-08-23 16:11 +1000
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 23:45 -0700
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-08-21 21:42 -1000
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-15 23:57 -0700
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 03:30 -0400
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-09-16 08:37 +0000
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2016-09-16 12:16 +0200
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-09-16 12:56 +0000
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-09-16 09:39 -0500
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 02:13 -0400
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-16 23:46 -0700
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-09-17 02:02 -0500
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-17 00:41 -0700
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 16:51 -0400
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-17 17:24 -0700
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-09-18 15:44 -0500
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2016-10-13 00:49 +0000
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-10-13 03:32 +0200
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 23:34 -0400
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-10-13 04:02 -0500
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-10-13 15:04 -0700
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 00:04 -0700
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] mhx@iae.nl - 2016-09-17 01:28 -0700
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-17 02:04 -0700
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-09-17 15:38 +0000
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-09-17 10:20 -0500
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 16:52 -0400
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-09-17 14:18 +0000
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-17 17:22 -0700
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-08-29 15:33 +0200
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Bruce Axtens <bruce.axtens@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 19:16 +0800
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2016-09-16 10:29 -0700
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-15 23:54 -0700
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-09-16 03:03 -0500
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-16 01:19 -0700
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-09-16 08:32 +0000
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-09-16 13:15 +0200
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2016-10-13 01:05 +0000
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-09-16 09:45 -0500
csiph-web