Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!shadooby!samsung!usc!ucla-cs!uci-ics!rfg
From: rfg@ics.uci.edu (Ron Guilmette)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.m88k
Subject: Re: SERIALIZATION bit (was Re: WELCOME to comp.sys.m88k)
Keywords: 88000
Message-ID: <1989Nov13.161540.27475@paris.ics.uci.edu>
Date: 14 Nov 89 00:15:40 GMT
References: <223@m1.UUCP> <1989Nov12.173826.19296@paris.ics.uci.edu> <2610@yogi.oakhill.UUCP>
Reply-To: Ron Guilmette <rfg@ics.uci.edu>
Organization: University of California, Irvine - Dept of ICS
Lines: 18

In article <2610@yogi.oakhill.UUCP> marvin@yogi.UUCP (Marvin Denman) writes:
>In article <1989Nov12.173826.19296@paris.ics.uci.edu> Ron Guilmette <rfg@ics.uci.edu> writes:
>>OK.  Here is a harder one.  I noticed in the 88100 hardware manual that
>>there is a control bit (in one of the control registers) that is said to
>>be the "SERIALIZATION" bit.  The manual (cryptically) sez that setting
>>this bit "serializes" the processor...
>
>My question is whether or not this bit belongs in the BCS.  Right now it
>is one of the bits controllable from a user program.  I realize its 
>importance to debuggers, but is it really needed by applications programs.

That's awful.  How can you virtualize the processor state if any
user program can set/clear this bit?  What if a debugger sets it and
then the user program clears it?

Shouldn't that bit be "protected" in some sense?

//rfg