The Unix Heritage Society mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: schily@schily.net (Joerg Schilling)
Subject: [TUHS] 68000 vs. 8086 ( was Algol68 vs. C at Bell Labs)
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 19:27:50 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <57755696.ZeDWkFFCgjjgPkR8%schily@schily.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6bec9228a3749e424f479675e12b0e71.squirrel@webmail.yaccman.com>

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1372 bytes --]

scj at yaccman.com wrote:

> My memory was that the 68000 gave the 8086 a pretty good run for its
> money, but when Moto came out with a memory management chip it had some
> severe flaws that made paging and fault recovery impossible, while the
> equivalent features available on the 8086 line were tolerable.  There were
> some bizarre attempts to page with the 68000 (I remember one product that
> had two 68000 chips, one of which was solely to sit on the shoulder of the
> other and remember enough information to respond to faults!).  By the time
> Moto fixed it, the 8086 had taken the field...

The 68451 did exist early. We had a "ExorMax" development system with the MMU 
that we used to develop our UNOS derivate "VBERTOS" before we had our own 
hardware.

The design bug in the mc68000 was that the execption stack did not contain the 
complete microcode state for things like "*p++" and thus was not restartable at 
the same state.

The ideas using two 68000 did put the main CPU into halt (from wehre it could 
be restarted) and did only run the exception handling code on the second CPU.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:joerg at schily.net                  (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'


  reply	other threads:[~2016-06-30 17:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-06-30 13:44 [TUHS] Algol68 vs. C at Bell Labs Noel Chiappa
2016-06-30 14:28 ` William Cheswick
2016-06-30 17:17 ` [TUHS] 68000 vs. 8086 ( was Algol68 vs. C at Bell Labs) scj
2016-06-30 17:27   ` Joerg Schilling [this message]
2016-06-30 18:52   ` Dan Cross
2016-06-30 19:59     ` Joerg Schilling
2016-06-30 20:06       ` Dan Cross
2016-06-30 20:27         ` Joerg Schilling
2016-06-30 19:23 ` [TUHS] Algol68 vs. C at Bell Labs John Cowan
2016-06-30 18:49 [TUHS] 68000 vs. 8086 ( was Algol68 vs. C at Bell Labs) Clem Cole

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=57755696.ZeDWkFFCgjjgPkR8%schily@schily.net \
    --to=schily@schily.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).