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