Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site oakhill.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!seismo!ut-sally!cyb-eng!oakhill!doug From: doug@oakhill.UUCP (Doug MacGregor) Newsgroups: net.micro.68k Subject: re:68000 alleged inconsistencies Message-ID: <162@oakhill.UUCP> Date: Mon, 13-Aug-84 12:22:37 EDT Article-I.D.: oakhill.162 Posted: Mon Aug 13 12:22:37 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 16-Aug-84 02:33:35 EDT Organization: Motorola Inc. Austin, Tx Lines: 22 I am sorry if I wasn't clear in my initial message about the behaviour of the 68000. When I said that the 68000 does not lose the upper byte in your code sequence that you described, I meant that I have tried your code sequence on a 68000 on a VM03 card and the result in both cases is A0 = $ff001006 and A0 = $ff001008 respectively. I am one of the designers of the 68010 and the 68020. I do not like it when you say that our processors have bugs in them. I would be very happy to have any bugs that do exist reported so that we could fix them immediately, but at the same time I would expect that those making the reports review their problems to ensure that there is indeed a problem. I would hope that you are cognizant of the difference between a processor and a system in which a processor resides. I have no question that when you execute your code sequence you observe the results you described. I agree that this is incorrect. This however this does not mean that the 68000 behaves this way. By the way, the last bug on the 68000 was reported over 4 1/2 years ago. Doug MacGregor {ihnp4,seismo,gatech,ctvax}!ut-sally!oakhill!doug