XPost: alt.folklore.computers, openwatcom.users.c_cpp   
   From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net   
      
   In article ,   
   Scott Lurndal  wrote:   
   >cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:   
   >>In article <10eda8d$3pd45$1@dont-email.me>,   
   >>Peter Flass   wrote:   
   >>>On 11/4/25 08:20, Scott Lurndal wrote:   
   >>>> Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> writes:   
   >>>>> On 2025-11-03, Peter Flass  wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 11/3/25 13:24, Lynn McGuire wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> When I saw this subject line, I thought it was some necroposting to   
   >>>>> threads from 1990.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Someone still cared about segmented x86 shit in 2010 (even if 32 bit)?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> There are still people on the internet who swear that the 286 is   
   >>>> better than sliced bread and refuse to recognize that modern   
   >>>> architectures are superior.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>>I was thinking, are there any segmented architectures today? Most   
   >>>disguise segmentation as a flat address space (e.g. IBM System/370 et.seq.)   
   >>   
   >>x86_64 is still nominally segmented; what "code segment" the   
   >>processor is running in matters, even in long mode.  But most of   
   >>the segment data is ignored by hardware (e.g., base and limits)   
   >>in 64-bit mode.   
   >   
   >Minor correction,  an update to AMD64 was done back in   
   >the oughts to support some segment limit registers for 64-bit XEN   
   >(and probably for vmware as well).   
   >   
   >See the LMSLE bit in the EFER register for more details.   
      
   Interesting.  AMD-only, not Intel.   
      
   This is why we can't have nice things.   
      
   	- Dan C.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)