On Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 10:18 AM Jon Steinhart <jon@fourwinds.com> wrote:

> Lars Brinkhoff writes:
> > Jon Steinhart wrote:
> > > The 32032 made sense for the workstation division based on the data
> sheets.
> > > But, it turned out to be extremely buggy, and unlike the 68K I don't
> recall
> > > the ability to look at and patch the state of the microcode.
> >
> > Did you have the ability to look at and patch the state of 68000
> > microcode?  How?
>
> My memory is very very very fuzzy on this.  I seem to recall that microcode
> state was pushed onto a stack in certain cases, and that it was possible to
> fix some problems there for certain weird cases relating to memory
> management.
> That's all that I remember about it as that's not the part of things that I
> was working on, just heard grumbles from other folks about it.
>

This isn't for the two cpu design to allow instructions to be restarted
after a page fault.

Warner

Jon
>