Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!polyslo!dorourke
From: dorourke@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (David M. O'Rourke)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
Subject: Re: Why no VM on a 68K? (was: Re: Why 68000?)
Keywords: MMU virtual memory Sys. 7.0 low-end
Message-ID: <25db487c.1aea@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>
Date: 16 Feb 90 00:25:32 GMT
References: <1990Feb11.154304.19943@smsc.sony.com> <3919@hub.UUCP> <10223@hoptoad.uucp> <1990Feb15.155556.5319@uncecs.edu> <19472@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU>
Reply-To: dorourke@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (David M. O'Rourke)
Organization: Cal Poly State University -- San Luis Obispo
Lines: 15


tga@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Greg Ames) writes:
>And I may be going out on a limb saying this, but didn't the original
>Sun's (the 1/XX series) use a 68000 to run Unix and virtual memory?
>I was under the impression that they came out before the 68010.  If so,
>how did Sun do it?  The MMU could be implemented in custom hardware,
>but what about restarting instructions in mid-stream?

  I just might be showing how gullible {sp??} I am here but I seem to
remember someone explaining to me that they ran 2 68000's one behind the
other, in the case of a page fault they'd use the 2nd one to restart the
instruction from the "primary" 68K.

  Anyone care to confirm or deny this outlandish story.  I'd really like to
find out if it's correct.

-- 
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\|/////////////////////////////////////////
David M. O'Rourke____________________|_____________dorourke@polyslo.calpoly.edu
| Graduating in March of 1990, with a BS in Computer Science                  |
|_That should make several people at Poly happy.______________________________|