From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Hd41G-0005uS-2c
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 15 Apr 2007 08:39:50 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Hd41D-0005uE-IT
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 15 Apr 2007 08:39:49 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hd41D-0005u9-C4
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 15 Apr 2007 08:39:47 -0400
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <paul@codesourcery.com>) id 1Hd3wh-00009N-Uh
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 15 Apr 2007 08:35:08 -0400
From: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] 16-bit (and 8-bit) emulation
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 13:35:04 +0100
References: <4621F9B8.8090808@bandsman.co.uk>
	<20070415113309.GA23160@miranda.arrow>
	<462215D9.5020101@bandsman.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <462215D9.5020101@bandsman.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200704151335.05068.paul@codesourcery.com>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Sunday 15 April 2007 13:08, Nigel Horne wrote:
> Stuart Brady wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 11:08:56AM +0100, Nigel Horne wrote:
> >> Can qemu emulate 16-bit machines (286?)?
> >
> > None that I'm aware of.  Is there any particular need for 286 emulation?
>
> To test my code on machines where sizeof(int) == sizeof(short), and
> sizeof(int) != sizeof(long).

Modern x86 are backwards compatible[*], so you should be able to do that 
anyway.

Paul

[*] There are a few corner cases, but these are only likely to effect 
hand-written asm doing evil things. There's probably more difference between 
qemu and real hardware than 286 and i386 real mode.