Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!uunet!jwt!john
From: john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: Comparing 486 to 386 Systems
Message-ID: <1991Apr20.194928.28452@jwt.UUCP>
Date: 20 Apr 91 19:49:28 GMT
References: <1991Apr11.073556.9556@agate.berkeley.edu> <1991Apr14.163703.4175@jwt.UUCP> <13238.280ad858@ecs.umass.edu>
Organization: Private System -- Orlando, FL
Lines: 12

In article <13238.280ad858@ecs.umass.edu> daly@ecs.umass.edu (Bryon Daly, ECE dept, UMass, Amherst) writes:
>> No, 16 bits is all you can address in one chunk.
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>No, 24 bits (in protected mode, and 20 in real mode)

Ok, show me some 286 code that steps through all 16 megabytes of its
address space, incrementing a single offset register as it goes.  No 
fair updating other "segment" registers, since you're then stepping 
through different "chunks"!  If I can address 20 bits in real mode in
one chunk, why can't my DOS C compiler grok "char foo[300000];" ?
-- 
John W. Temples -- john@jwt.UUCP (uunet!jwt!john)