Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!kithrup!sef
From: sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: What's in the '586?
Message-ID: <1991May15.170809.22172@kithrup.COM>
Date: 15 May 91 17:08:09 GMT
References: <1991May14.002130.4740@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> <42347@cup.portal.com>
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
Lines: 26

Yes, this thing is a *joke*.  How to tell?  Look:

In article <42347@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:
>umh@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Maynard Handley) says:
>While the
>486 has a unified instruction/data cache, the 586 has separate caches for
>the CS, SS, DS, ES, FS, and GS segments.  Although this does not significantly
>accelerate code written for the "flat" model used by Unix and OS/2, more than
>90% of all 86-family applications were written for an earlier model which
>encouraged programmers to divide their memory references into independent
>code, stack, and up to four data spaces.  These programs will benefit
>enormously from the new "hex-cache" architecture.

DOS and OS/2 programs don't *know* about the FS and GS segments.  In
addition, one would have to deal with self-modifying code (which is why the
'486 has a single cache, I believe).  And, of course, 8086 "segments" are
really no such thing.

Can we get back to something else now?  Even unix-bashing would be more
amusing...

-- 
Sean Eric Fagan  | "I made the universe, but please don't blame me for it;
sef@kithrup.COM  |  I had a bellyache at the time."
-----------------+           -- The Turtle (Stephen King, _It_)
Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.