DOS ain't dead

Question about some x86 opcodes (Developers)

posted by Rugxulo , Usono, 12.11.2008, 00:43

> > Anyways, these days NEC chips are very very very rare, as even a 286
> > outruns it.
>
> Today XT machines are rare, in general. But some of them may still work
>

I do believe it miracles!

> > The only "bug" commonly known for them is that "aam 16" etc.
> > (i.e. with any operand other than default 10, since it was undocumented
> by
> > Intel) don't work.
>
> Too bad, "aam 16" and "aad 16" are handy for dec-hex conversions. I
> remember I had to revise some of my old code when I found this
> information. BTW, it is strange that they do not support it -- for me, the
> purpose of the second byte was obvious as soon as I noticed that this is a
> two-byte opcode (I had no "undocumented" documentation at that time).
> If NEC really reverse-engineered Intel chips, this is even more strange...

Jim Leonard didn't have anything extra to add, so I think you're safe.

("Didn't know anything about it, but it looks like you've posed the question, research the question, and answered the question all in the below email!" -- JL)

Complete thread:

• Question about some x86 opcodes - mht, 02.11.2008, 14:02 (Developers)
  • Question about some x86 opcodes - Japheth, 02.11.2008, 17:51
  • Question about some x86 opcodes - DOS386, 03.11.2008, 10:04
    • Question about some x86 opcodes - mht, 05.11.2008, 19:54
      • Question about some x86 opcodes - Rugxulo, 06.11.2008, 21:06
        • Question about some x86 opcodes - mht, 08.11.2008, 08:46
          • Question about some x86 opcodes - Rugxulo, 12.11.2008, 00:43
            • Question about some x86 opcodes - mht, 12.11.2008, 16:54
              • Question about some x86 opcodes - mht, 22.11.2008, 13:59