nondeprivated processor state

Question about which tools to use, bugs, the best way to implement a function, etc should go here. Don't forget to see if your question is answered in the wiki first! When in doubt post here.
Post Reply
kenna
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 1:26 pm

nondeprivated processor state

Post by kenna »

How do I enter a nondeprivated processor state on an 386 (or higher)?

I.e. all standard 32-bit x86 instructions and 32-bit memory access, a nondeprivated processor state where you do NOT have to worry about ANY modes-whatever-bullshit, the state in which most other processor start, where the processor is ready to execute any of it's standard instructions without any unecessary and troublesome messing about.

I truly wish MIPS or PPC had become the standard architecture, the PC is too cumbersome T_T argh! Or at least that someone would make a PURE 32-bit PC processor...*sigh* I'm so close to writing yet another rant, but I better not!
User avatar
Brynet-Inc
Member
Member
Posts: 2426
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:29 pm
Libera.chat IRC: brynet
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Brynet-Inc »

I think you might want to read up on the architecture... :wink:

http://www.osdev.org/wiki/Protected_mode
Image
Twitter: @canadianbryan. Award by smcerm, I stole it. Original was larger.
kenna
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 1:26 pm

Post by kenna »

lol, yes I do! I know quite little about x86 in general, only somewhat familiar with the instruction set, but that's it, and all these modes and registers, etc. kind of make my head go round and round ^^

At first I thought the unreal mode was my best option, but after reading a bit about it, I got confused again O_O

*sigh* backwards compatibility does have some benefits I guess, but it sure has its problems too, or for whatever reason they've made it so messy ^~^;
User avatar
AJ
Member
Member
Posts: 2646
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:01 am
Location: Devon, UK
Contact:

Post by AJ »

kenna wrote:*sigh* backwards compatibility does have some benefits I guess, but it sure has its problems too, or for whatever reason they've made it so messy ^~^;
Perhaps the transition to 64 bit was a bit of a missed opportunity for reducing the amount of backwards compatibility required - for example making a transition to chips that start in long mode.

I know it's not all that simple, but if you get a 64 bit chip, you need a new mobo, ram, arguably a PCI-E graphics card, SATA hard drive etc.. Seeing as so much hardware was required to change anyway, maybe that would have been a time to 'de-clutter' the internals of the architecture a bit. I guess getting mobo vendors, os developpers etc... to adopt the new architecture at once would be a bit tricky :?

But when else will this happen. In 25 years, will we be on native 1024 bit chips, but have to enable A-20, go through rmode, pmode, long-mode et. al. to get there :(

Cheers,
Adam
Post Reply