Quoting Ralf Corsepius <ralf.corsep...@googlemail.com>:
On 12/13/2012 04:53 PM, Erik Trulsson wrote:
Quoting Ralf Corsepius <ralf.corsep...@googlemail.com>:
On 12/12/2012 08:54 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 12/12/2012 2:52 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
And as usual: If you use an almost 30 years old architecture, why
would you need the latest-and-greatest compiler technology?
Seriously...
Well the embedded folk often end up with precisely this dichotomy :-)
But if no sign of 386 embedded chips, then reasonable to deprecate
I've never heard about them before, nor do I know how far spread their
products are, however these folks seem to be producing i386-SoCs
http://www.dmp.com.tw/
esp. this one
http://www.dmp.com.tw/tech/vortex86sx/
I am not 100% sure, but from looking at the documents on that page I
think it is based on the i486 rather than on the i386.
Neither am I ;)
My impression (although I am not quite up to date with the current
situation) is that many (most?) x86 CPUs used in smaller embedded
systems are i48&/i586 hybrids, i.e. they are i486-compatible and
also supports some (but not all) features of the i586.
No idea, on http://www.dmp.com.tw/tech/vortex86sx/faq.htm#3001
they are telling the Vortex86sx doesn't have an FPU, while the
"upcoming Vortex86dx" would have one.
Well, the Intel 80486sx did not have an FPU either, while the 80486dx
did have one. From the Pentium (i586) onwards all Intel x86 CPUs have
been equipped with an FPU, so not having an FPU would fit in with being
compatible with i486 but not the i586.
