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!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hao!seismo!ut-sally!cyb-eng!oakhill!doug From: doug@oakhill.UUCP (Doug MacGregor) Newsgroups: net.micro.68k,net.micro.apple Subject: re:68000 inconsistency Message-ID: <161@oakhill.UUCP> Date: Thu, 9-Aug-84 19:15:11 EDT Article-I.D.: oakhill.161 Posted: Thu Aug 9 19:15:11 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 13-Aug-84 00:22:24 EDT Organization: Motorola Inc. Austin, Tx Lines: 12 The 68000 does not lose the upper 8 bits of the address. Internally all 32-bits are significant on the 68000 regardless of whether there are 24, 31, or 32-bits of address visible from outside the chip. The implementation internally is the same for all cases. I agree completely with the description given by John Gilmore as to the motivation for not mucking with the address. It seems highly likely that the culprit may be a program playing games with those upper bits, it's not the processor. Doug MacGregor {ihnp4,seismo,gatech,ctvax}!ut-sally!oakhill!doug