News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on AT&T Syntax versus Intel Syntax. Parent comment

Re:AT&T Syntax versus Intel Syntax by AnimalMuppet on Sunday November 13, 2022 @10:18PM (#33589883)
So, reading the comments here I got the impression that the 8086/8088 order was backwards from everything else before it. Did the 8080 and Z-80 have the same order as the 8086?

But even then, you have worlds converging. The 8086 was (barely) capable of running Unix, whereas the Z-80 definitely was not. Was the 8086 a part of the PDP-11 minicomputer world, or was it part of the 8080/Z-80 world? Well, it was both. Complaining that one world produced an assembler before the other did is... a bit exclusivist. Also whiny.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:AT&T Syntax versus Intel Syntax by userbinator on Sunday November 13, 2022 @11:36PM (#33590231)
The 8086 was (barely) capable of running Unix, whereas the Z-80 definitely was not.

https://github.com/chettrick/uzics

You're wrong ;-)

Neither the 8086 nor the Z80 have virtual memory. The x86 has a larger instruction set and address space (1MB) but as it turns out, early Unix kernels didn't need that much RAM either.

[ Parent | on HN ]