From: nowhere@never.at   
      
   On 13.07.2021 10:05, muta...@gmail.com wrote:   
   > On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 3:16:03 PM UTC+10, wolfgang kern wrote:   
   >   
   >>> No. On a real 8086. The x'66' will be ignored. So a real   
   >>> 8086 and PM32 will both work, right?   
   >   
   >> Not sure why you want a 16 bit operand in PM32.   
   >   
   > I'm trying to do 16-bit programming with a bigger   
   > EFFECTIVE shift than 4 bits.   
   >   
   >> the 66 "may"   
   >> be ignored by 8086/88, could be an alias for other as well.   
   >   
   > How can it be an alias on an 8086?   
      
   would need to remove several layers of dust from my collection   
   of Intel books to check if it is mentioned at all.   
   the code 0x60..group could be alias for 0x70.. or 0x50..   
   similar to 0x82 which is (was until 2000) an alias for 0x80   
      
   >> If you want to always use 16 bit code then use PM16.   
      
   > You know what? That's a great idea! I didn't think of the   
   > murky PM16 world.   
      
   >> only but all segment registers are different in PM16.   
      
   > They are selectors. But I can make them look like   
   > segment registers with a particular shift.   
      
   Shift wont do what you want, look at the layout of descriptors.   
      
   >> AND with PM16 you can use 64KB blocks anywhere within 4GB.   
      
   > I assume I still have 16384 selectors, so I will still be limited   
   > to a total of 1 GiB.   
      
   No you can have maximal 8191 selectors and you'll need CS-DS pairs.   
   so 4095*64KB ~ 512MB.   
   But try what older EMM did: have only a few variable selectors   
   and put your address bits extension right into the start field.   
      
   you could even define this start-addresses as C-variables..   
   oh, did I say this yet? :)   
   __   
   wolfgang   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)