XPost: alt.folklore.computers, openwatcom.users.c_cpp   
   From: Peter@Iron-Spring.com   
      
   On 11/7/25 08:50, Dan Cross wrote:   
   > 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.   
   >   
   > Of course, it retains a notion of segmentation for a) 16- and   
   > 32-bit code compatibility, and b) startup, where the processor   
   > (still!!) comes out of reset in 16-bit real mode.   
   >   
   > Intel had a proposal to do away with 16-bit mode and anything   
   > other than long mode for 64-bit, but it seems to have died.  So   
   > it seems like we'll be stuck with x86 segmentation --- at least   
   > for compatibility purposes --- for a while longer still.   
   >   
   > 	- Dan C.   
   >   
      
   Probably at least until the 128-bit systems arrive ;-)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)