Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!pbox!romed!svo!okstate!gregg
From: gregg@a.cs.okstate.edu (Gregg Wonderly)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Pointer alignment when processor == brain damaged
Message-ID: <2543@okstate.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 9-Sep-87 23:05:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: okstate.2543
Posted: Wed Sep  9 23:05:21 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 12-Sep-87 10:47:08 EDT
References: <2894@hoptoad.uucp>
Organization: Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater
Lines: 36

in article <2894@hoptoad.uucp>, gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) says:
> 
> root@hobbes.UUCP (John Plocher) wrote:
>> -- New Subject:  pointer manipulation on intel chips --
>> 	A pointer has 2 parts, a SEGMENT and an OFFSET, each 16 bits in length.
>>     e.g.:  1040:3333
>>  ...
> 
> I think it's great :-) that people are teaching folks how to write programs
> for the 8086 that will break when recompiled for the 80386.  There's nothing
> like software foolishness to break even the best-implemented hardware
> compatability...
>

And the best part is, INTeL is still producing the same brain damage which
has infected this poor persons mind.

I think it sucks when companies pick monetary solutions over better
solutions just to be compatible.  After all, aren't the same limitations
in a compiled program on the 80286 still there on the 80386?

Why shouldn't I just buy a whole new system since I am going to have to
buy new hardware to get rid of those limitations, and then new software
to get rid of the limitations there?

Seems a bit stupid to me...

MSDOS -- Just say NO!

-----
Gregg Wonderly
Department of Computing and Information Sciences
Oklahoma State University

UUCP:  {cbosgd, ihnp4, rutgers, seismo, uiucdcs}!okstate!gregg
ARPA:  gregg@A.CS.OKSTATE.EDU