9 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >
 |
| 9. |
Re: Saturday Tech Bits |
Dec 16, 2012, 19:33 |
Creston |
|
|
Thanks for the explanations, guys. 
Creston |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 8. |
Re: Saturday Tech Bits |
Dec 16, 2012, 12:04 |
NewMaxx |
|
|
| Yeah, pretty much what crypto said. When it comes to compiling (which is what this is about), it's all about the instruction set. i386 lacks what are now considered essential instructions that are contained in i686, requiring a different compile path (legacy), which is now officially retired. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 7. |
Re: Saturday Tech Bits |
Dec 16, 2012, 08:26 |
crypto |
|
|
Creston wrote on Dec 16, 2012, 00:58:
Beelzebud wrote on Dec 15, 2012, 15:01:
What do you mean by compatible? An i386 and an i686 can both flip bits and run code, but they have vastly different architectures.
I'll admit that I have zero knowledge of processors. I was under the impression, however, we still considered modern day processors to be of the i386 variety? Or am I getting confused with x86?
Creston It started in 1978 with the 8086 and each change after that "extended" on that, the 86 just means compatible with the last processor so now its just x86, which means the whole family. To say they are vastly different is not rally true since i686 is a i386 with major "additions". Code for i386 will run on i686 but code for i686 will not run on i386 because it doesn't have the things(registers) the code is trying to use. So the answer to your original question is yes, i386 is compatible with i686 but to make your i686 code run on a i386 requires alot of thinking and dumbed down machine code. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 6. |
Re: Saturday Tech Bits |
Dec 16, 2012, 02:48 |
shihonage |
|
|
There's the physical processor and there's the codeset. The article should've just said "386", not "i386".
Linux has been the most amazingly backward compatible OS up to this point because it could actually run on a 386 processor. Until now.
I don't think anyone cares. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 5. |
Re: Saturday Tech Bits |
Dec 16, 2012, 00:58 |
Creston |
|
|
Beelzebud wrote on Dec 15, 2012, 15:01:
What do you mean by compatible? An i386 and an i686 can both flip bits and run code, but they have vastly different architectures.
I'll admit that I have zero knowledge of processors. I was under the impression, however, we still considered modern day processors to be of the i386 variety? Or am I getting confused with x86?
Creston |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 4. |
Re: Saturday Tech Bits |
Dec 15, 2012, 19:29 |
LittleMe |
|
|
Creston wrote on Dec 15, 2012, 14:27:
Aren't all modern processors still compatible with the i386?
All modern x86 compatible processors are, yes I believe so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Political freedom can only be preceded by economic freedom which is preceded by monetary freedom. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 3. |
Re: Saturday Tech Bits |
Dec 15, 2012, 17:12 |
Mashiki Amiketo |
|
|
Creston wrote on Dec 15, 2012, 14:27:
Aren't all modern processors still compatible with the i386?
Creston From what I understand, it's the compatibility between 8bit and 16bit registers that screw everything up, especially in the 32bit pipe. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
--
"For every human problem,
there is a neat, simple solution;
and it is always wrong."
--H.L. Mencken |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 2. |
Re: Saturday Tech Bits |
Dec 15, 2012, 15:01 |
Beelzebud |
|
|
| What do you mean by compatible? An i386 and an i686 can both flip bits and run code, but they have vastly different architectures. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 1. |
Re: Saturday Tech Bits |
Dec 15, 2012, 14:27 |
Creston |
|
|
Aren't all modern processors still compatible with the i386?
Creston |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
9 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >
|
|
Twitter 
