Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!dogie!uwvax!astroatc!jojo
From: jojo@astroatc.UUCP (Jon Wesener)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.nsc.32k
Subject: Re: software compatability
Keywords: compatability, stack frame
Message-ID: <1653@astroatc.UUCP>
Date: 3 Apr 89 16:18:06 GMT
References: <18216@gatech.edu>
Reply-To: jojo@astroatc.UUCP (Jon Wesener)
Organization: Astronautics Technology Cntr, Madison, WI
Lines: 37

In article <18216@gatech.edu> ken@gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) writes:
>What are the problems involved in moving software up in the 32000
>chain (i.e. moving stuff compiled on a 32016 or 32032 to the 32332 and
>32532).

	There's only a few priviliged instructions that differ between the
processors.  The config register gains a few bits and the 532 has a
cache invalidate instruction.  There's also a few new traps to worry
about.  Moving software across the cpu's is no problem, though.  We run 
the same binaries for our software on the 32016, 32332 and 32532.  We
do ignore the stranger side of the 32000 architecture however, like
the cxp instruction and mod tables...

>I know there are stack frame problems when moving from the 68000 to
>the 68020, does such a thing exsist on the 32000s?

Nope, this is not a problem on the 32000s.  

>Are the 32082, the 32382 and the 32532 MMUs compatable?

There are 2 mmu's I've seen running with the 32000's, the 32082 and
the 32382.  The 1st has a page size of 512 bytes while the latter
is 4k.  This causes the pte structure to be different, of course, and
they also have somewhat different register sets.  This hasn't caused
a problem for us, though.

>Oh...to clarify, I'm primarily interested in binary compatability.

Like I said, we have no problems doing it.  

>	...ken seefried iii
>	   ken@gatech.edu

--jojo
-- 
... {seismo | harvard } ! {uwvax | cs.wisc.edu} ! astroatc!jojo
"Its Frank's world, the rest of us just live in it." -- Bongwater