Re: the 286, Byte ordering

Liste des GroupesRevenir à c arch 
Sujet : Re: the 286, Byte ordering
De : anton (at) *nospam* mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
Groupes : comp.arch
Date : 05. Jan 2025, 18:51:34
Autres entêtes
Organisation : Institut fuer Computersprachen, Technische Universitaet Wien
Message-ID : <2025Jan5.185134@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>
References : 1 2
User-Agent : xrn 10.11
jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) writes:
An idea: The target markets for the 8080 and 8085 were clearly embedded
systems. The Z80 and 6502 rapidly became popular in the micro-computer
market, but the 808[05] did not.

The 8080 was used in the first microcomputers, e.g., the 1974 Altair
8800 and the IMSAI 8080.  It was important for all the CP/M machines,
because the CP/M software (both the OS and the programs running on it)
were written to use the 8080 instruction set, not the Z80 instruction
set.  And CP/M was the professional microcomputer OS before the IBM PC
compatible market took off, despite the fact that the most popular
microcomputers of the time (such as the Apple II, TRS-80 ad PET) did
not use it; there was an add-on card for the Apple II with a Z80 for
running CP/M, though, which shows the importance of CP/M.

Anyway, while Zilog may have taken their sales, I very much believe
that Intel was aware of the general-purpose computing market, and the
iAPX432 clearly showed that they wanted to be dominant there.  It's an
irony of history that the 8086/8088 actually went where the action
was.

Intel released the MCS-51 (aka 8051) in 1980 for embedded systems, and
it's very successful there, and before that came the MCS-48 (8048) in
1976.

Intel may still have been thinking in
terms of embedded systems when designing the 80286.

I very much doubt that the segments and the 24 address bits were
designed for embedded systems.  The segments look more like an echo of
the iAPX432 than of anything designed for embedded systems.

The idea of some static allocation of memory for which segments might
work may come from old mainframe systems, where programs were (in my
impression) more static than PC programs and modern computing.  Even
in Unix programs, which were more dynamic than mainframe programs had
quite a bit of static allocation in the early days; this is reflected
in the paragraph in the GNU coding standards:

|Avoid arbitrary limits on the length or number of any data structure,
|including file names, lines, files, and symbols, by allocating all
|data structures dynamically. In most Unix utilities, "long lines are
|silently truncated". This is not acceptable in a GNU utility.

The IBM PC was launched in August 1981 and around a year passed before it
became clear that this machine was having a huge and lasting effect on
the market. The 80286 was released on February 1st 1982, although it
wasn't used much in PCs until the IBM PC/AT in August 1984.

The 80286 project was started in 1978, before any use of the 8086.
<https://timeline.intel.com/1978/kicking-off-the-80286> claims that
they "spent six months on field research into customers' needs alone";
Judging by the results, maybe the customers were clueless, or maybe
Intel asked the wrong questions.

The 80386 sampled in 1985 and was mass-produced in 1986. That would seem
to have been the first version of x86 where it was obvious at the start
of design that use in general-purpose computers would be important.

Actually, reading the oral history of the 386, at the start the 386
project was just an unimportant followon of the 286, while the main
action was expected to be on the BiiN project (from which the i960
came).  Only sometime during that project the IBM PC market exploded
and the 386 became the most important project of the company.

But yes, they were very much aware of the needs of programmers in the
386 project, and would probably have done something with just paging
and no segments if they did not have the 8086 and 80286 legacy.

- anton
--
'Anyone trying for "industrial quality" ISA should avoid undefined behavior.'
  Mitch Alsup, <c17fcd89-f024-40e7-a594-88a85ac10d20o@googlegroups.com>

Date Sujet#  Auteur
1 Oct 24 * Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)387MitchAlsup1
1 Oct 24 `* Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)386Thomas Koenig
1 Oct 24  +* Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)379MitchAlsup1
2 Oct 24  i+* Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)377Brett
3 Oct 24  ii`* Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)376Lawrence D'Oliveiro
3 Oct 24  ii +- Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)1Brett
3 Oct 24  ii +- Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)1Anton Ertl
3 Oct 24  ii `* Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)373David Brown
3 Oct 24  ii  `* Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)372Anton Ertl
3 Oct 24  ii   +- Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)1David Brown
3 Oct 24  ii   +* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)369Lawrence D'Oliveiro
4 Oct 24  ii   i+- Re: Byte ordering1Lynn Wheeler
4 Oct 24  ii   i+* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)365David Brown
4 Oct 24  ii   ii`* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)364Anton Ertl
4 Oct 24  ii   ii +* Re: Byte ordering5BGB
5 Oct 24  ii   ii i`* Re: Byte ordering4MitchAlsup1
5 Oct 24  ii   ii i +* Re: Byte ordering2BGB
5 Oct 24  ii   ii i i`- Re: Byte ordering1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
5 Oct 24  ii   ii i `- Re: Byte ordering1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
5 Oct 24  ii   ii +* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)13Lawrence D'Oliveiro
5 Oct 24  ii   ii i`* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)12Brett
5 Oct 24  ii   ii i `* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)11Anton Ertl
5 Oct 24  ii   ii i  `* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)10Michael S
6 Oct 24  ii   ii i   +- Re: Byte ordering1Terje Mathisen
6 Oct 24  ii   ii i   `* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)8Brett
7 Oct 24  ii   ii i    `* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)7Lawrence D'Oliveiro
7 Oct 24  ii   ii i     `* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)6Brett
7 Oct 24  ii   ii i      `* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)5Michael S
7 Oct 24  ii   ii i       +* Re: Byte ordering2Stefan Monnier
7 Oct 24  ii   ii i       i`- Re: Byte ordering1Michael S
7 Oct 24  ii   ii i       `* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)2Lawrence D'Oliveiro
8 Oct 24  ii   ii i        `- Re: Byte ordering1Terje Mathisen
6 Oct 24  ii   ii `* Re: Byte ordering345David Brown
6 Oct 24  ii   ii  `* Re: Byte ordering344Anton Ertl
6 Oct 24  ii   ii   +* Re: Byte ordering189John Dallman
7 Oct 24  ii   ii   i+* Re: Byte ordering20Lawrence D'Oliveiro
8 Oct 24  ii   ii   ii`* Re: Byte ordering19John Dallman
9 Oct 24  ii   ii   ii +- VMS/NT memory management (was: Byte ordering)1Stefan Monnier
15 Oct 24  ii   ii   ii +* Re: Byte ordering2Lawrence D'Oliveiro
15 Oct 24  ii   ii   ii i`- Re: Byte ordering1MitchAlsup1
15 Oct 24  ii   ii   ii `* Re: Byte ordering15Lawrence D'Oliveiro
15 Oct 24  ii   ii   ii  +* Re: Byte ordering3Michael S
15 Oct 24  ii   ii   ii  i+- Re: Byte ordering1John Dallman
18 Oct 24  ii   ii   ii  i`- Re: Byte ordering1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
15 Oct 24  ii   ii   ii  +* Re: Byte ordering9John Dallman
16 Oct 24  ii   ii   ii  i+* Re: Byte ordering7George Neuner
16 Oct 24  ii   ii   ii  ii`* Re: Byte ordering6Terje Mathisen
16 Oct 24  ii   ii   ii  ii `* Re: Byte ordering5David Brown
17 Oct 24  ii   ii   ii  ii  +* Re: Byte ordering2George Neuner
17 Oct 24  ii   ii   ii  ii  i`- Re: Byte ordering1David Brown
17 Oct 24  ii   ii   ii  ii  `* Re: clouds, not Byte ordering2John Levine
17 Oct 24  ii   ii   ii  ii   `- Re: clouds, not Byte ordering1David Brown
18 Oct 24  ii   ii   ii  i`- Re: Byte ordering1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
16 Oct 24  ii   ii   ii  `* Re: Byte ordering2Paul A. Clayton
18 Oct 24  ii   ii   ii   `- Re: Microkernels & Capabilities (was Re: Byte ordering)1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
7 Oct 24  ii   ii   i`* 80286 protected mode168Anton Ertl
7 Oct 24  ii   ii   i +* Re: 80286 protected mode5Lars Poulsen
7 Oct 24  ii   ii   i i`* Re: 80286 protected mode4Terje Mathisen
7 Oct 24  ii   ii   i i +- Re: 80286 protected mode1Michael S
7 Oct 24  ii   ii   i i `* Re: 80286 protected mode2Lawrence D'Oliveiro
8 Oct 24  ii   ii   i i  `- Re: 80286 protected mode1Terje Mathisen
7 Oct 24  ii   ii   i +* Re: 80286 protected mode3Brett
7 Oct 24  ii   ii   i i`* Re: 80286 protected mode2Michael S
7 Oct 24  ii   ii   i i `- Re: 80286 protected mode1Brett
7 Oct 24  ii   ii   i +- Re: 80286 protected mode1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
8 Oct 24  ii   ii   i +* Re: 80286 protected mode152MitchAlsup1
8 Oct 24  ii   ii   i i+* Re: 80286 protected mode4Lawrence D'Oliveiro
8 Oct 24  ii   ii   i ii`* Re: 80286 protected mode3MitchAlsup1
9 Oct 24  ii   ii   i ii +- Re: 80286 protected mode1David Brown
15 Oct 24  ii   ii   i ii `- Re: 80286 protected mode1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
8 Oct 24  ii   ii   i i`* Re: 80286 protected mode147Anton Ertl
8 Oct 24  ii   ii   i i +- Re: 80286 protected mode1Robert Finch
9 Oct 24  ii   ii   i i `* Re: 80286 protected mode145David Brown
9 Oct 24  ii   ii   i i  +* Re: 80286 protected mode79MitchAlsup1
9 Oct 24  ii   ii   i i  i`* Re: 80286 protected mode78David Brown
9 Oct 24  ii   ii   i i  i `* Re: 80286 protected mode77Stephen Fuld
10 Oct 24  ii   ii   i i  i  +* Re: 80286 protected mode2MitchAlsup1
10 Oct 24  ii   ii   i i  i  i`- Re: 80286 protected mode1David Brown
10 Oct 24  ii   ii   i i  i  +- Re: 80286 protected mode1David Brown
11 Oct 24  ii   ii   i i  i  `* Re: 80286 protected mode73Tim Rentsch
15 Oct 24  ii   ii   i i  i   `* Re: 80286 protected mode72Stefan Monnier
15 Oct 24  ii   ii   i i  i    +* Re: 80286 protected mode30MitchAlsup1
16 Oct 24  ii   ii   i i  i    i+* Re: 80286 protected mode25MitchAlsup1
16 Oct 24  ii   ii   i i  i    ii+* Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode13John Levine
16 Oct 24  ii   ii   i i  i    iii+* Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode7MitchAlsup1
16 Oct 24  ii   ii   i i  i    iiii`* Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode6John Levine
17 Oct 24  ii   ii   i i  i    iiii `* Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode5Thomas Koenig
20 Oct 24  ii   ii   i i  i    iiii  `* Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode4Lawrence D'Oliveiro
20 Oct 24  ii   ii   i i  i    iiii   `* Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode3George Neuner
22 Oct 24  ii   ii   i i  i    iiii    `* Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode2Tim Rentsch
22 Oct 24  ii   ii   i i  i    iiii     `- Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode1George Neuner
16 Oct 24  ii   ii   i i  i    iii+- Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode1David Brown
16 Oct 24  ii   ii   i i  i    iii`* Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode4Paul A. Clayton
17 Oct 24  ii   ii   i i  i    iii +- Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode1David Brown
20 Oct 24  ii   ii   i i  i    iii `* Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode2Lawrence D'Oliveiro
20 Oct 24  ii   ii   i i  i    iii  `- Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode1Paul A. Clayton
16 Oct 24  ii   ii   i i  i    ii+* Re: 80286 protected mode7Thomas Koenig
16 Oct 24  ii   ii   i i  i    iii+* Re: 80286 protected mode2MitchAlsup1
17 Oct 24  ii   ii   i i  i    iiii`- Re: 80286 protected mode1Tim Rentsch
17 Oct 24  ii   ii   i i  i    iii`* Re: 80286 protected mode4Tim Rentsch
17 Oct 24  ii   ii   i i  i    iii `* Re: fine points of dynamic memory allocation, not 80286 protected mode3John Levine
17 Oct 24  ii   ii   i i  i    ii+* Re: 80286 protected mode3George Neuner
17 Oct 24  ii   ii   i i  i    ii`- Re: 80286 protected mode1Tim Rentsch
16 Oct 24  ii   ii   i i  i    i+* Re: 80286 protected mode3David Brown
17 Oct 24  ii   ii   i i  i    i`- Re: 80286 protected mode1Tim Rentsch
16 Oct 24  ii   ii   i i  i    `* Re: 80286 protected mode41David Brown
9 Oct 24  ii   ii   i i  +* Re: 80286 protected mode51Thomas Koenig
13 Oct 24  ii   ii   i i  `* Re: 80286 protected mode14Anton Ertl
8 Oct 24  ii   ii   i `* Re: 80286 protected mode6John Levine
3 Jan 25  ii   ii   `* Re: Byte ordering154Waldek Hebisch
6 Oct 24  ii   i`* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)2Michael S
3 Oct 24  ii   `- Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)1John Dallman
2 Oct 24  i`- Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)1Thomas Koenig
2 Oct 24  +* Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)5David Schultz
3 Oct 24  `- Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)1Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal