Xref: utzoo comp.unix.microport:3030 comp.unix.questions:12432 comp.unix.wizards:15213
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!sgi!daisy!david
From: david@daisy.UUCP (David Schachter)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.microport,comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: C bug causes double panic
Message-ID: <2865@daisy.UUCP>
Date: 24 Mar 89 19:00:33 GMT
References: <244@tree.UUCP> <9884@smoke.BRL.MIL> <2044@viper.Lynx.MN.Org> <13866@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US> <2863@daisy.UUCP> <18227@gatech.edu>
Followup-To: comp.arch
Organization: Daisy Systems Corp., Mountain View, Ca.
Lines: 13

ken@gatech.edu takes issue with my claim that the 80286 was modelled after
the PDP-11.  My sources are one of the microcoders for the chip, one of
the layout engineers for the chip, the manager of the 80186 design team,
and a general purpose Intel guru, who worked on various 80x86 family chips
and is now a production manager on an 80386 fab line in a city whose name
I can't possibly spell, in the South West of the U.S.A.

So, Ken, maybe they didn't do such a good job of imitation, but the PDP-11
was the source.  The 80286 segmentation scheme is certainly better than the
PDP-11.  But the -11 clearly wins in register availability.

I suspect further discussion should be moved to comp.arch or e-mail.  I'll
attempt to change the followup line accordingly.