Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by oselhn 3811 days ago
"I don't think it's anything sinister since these are mostly fixes for the game bugs and the rest are resolutions for API ambiguities." I think it is big problem. It is the same as forcing intel to change their CPU to workaround bugs in your application.
2 comments

This analogy is pretty spot on, actually. It's a result of a long process of software evolution that went awry and this is a big reason why we need new APIs like Mantle, Vulkan and DirectX 12.

See this fascinating post:

http://www.gamedev.net/topic/666419-what-are-your-opinions-o...

You mean something like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A20_line ?
One could argue that address overflow above 1MB was not a bug, but a feature of the early real-mode CPUs and hence (ab)using it wasn't really a bug either.

Probably even Intel didn't anticipate protected mode with its 24 bit address bus when designing the 8086. 1MB was enough for everyone at this time.

Exactly my point. Intel was "forced" to fix a bug in software by changing its hardware. The A20 gate was not to prevent programs from accessing "HMA" it was to fix programs, which generated addresses above 0xfffff and expected it to wrap around.