So is this x86 compatible, or 8086 compatible? Because those are different things
If it was 8086 they would have written 8086
Show HN: X86CSS – An x86 CPU emulator written in CSS
31–40 of 99 posts
Re: Show HN: X86CSS – An x86 CPU emulator written in CSS
#32So is this x86 compatible, or 8086 compatible? Because those are different things
If it was 8086 they would have written 8086
> What you're seeing above is a C program that was compiled using GCC into native 8086 machine code being executed fully within CSS.
They did write 8086 in the text, but x86 in the title.
Re: Show HN: X86CSS – An x86 CPU emulator written in CSS
#33So is this x86 compatible, or 8086 compatible? Because those are different things
8086 is x86
Re: Show HN: X86CSS – An x86 CPU emulator written in CSS
#34> A hover-based clock, such as the one in Jane Ori's CPU Hack, is fast and stable, but requires you to hold your mouse on the screen, which some people claim does not count as turing complete for whatever reason, so I wanted this demo to be fully functional with zero user input. That hover clock post is from 2023 and the "some people claim does not count" post is 2022. They were probably talking about the ones that m…
I wasn't sure whether to address the disconnect in the FAQ - I wanted it to be short and readable.
The idea is that, since a long time ago, there has always been demos that prove turing completeness and other programmy qualities in CSS, but that which people dismiss as requiring user inputs. The ones around by the time the comment got made were definitely at the "keep on clicking on the same spot on the screen" level - essentially just providing a clock.
And seeing discussion from after Jane Ori's hack, many still claim that even as much as hovering your mouse on a specific part of the screen makes css not a programming language.
Re: Show HN: X86CSS – An x86 CPU emulator written in CSS
#35So is this x86 compatible, or 8086 compatible? Because those are different things
If it was 8086 they would have written 8086
They write both. They write x86 repeatedly in the article and title, then show an instruction matrix that doesn't include, for example, the 468 CMPXCHG instructions or the crypto extensions PCLMULHQHQDQ instruction. Best I can guess, they mean 8086, which they think is equivalent to x86
Re: Show HN: X86CSS – An x86 CPU emulator written in CSS
#36So is this x86 compatible, or 8086 compatible? Because those are different things
8086 is x86 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86
The instruction matrix they provide only includes 8086 instructions, not 186, 286 etc, which are all x86, hence the x at the start. From that wikipedia article, "The term "x86" came into being because the names of several successors to Intel's 8086 processor end in "86", including the 80186, 80286, 80386 and 80486. Colloquially, their names were "186", "286", "386" and "486"."
Re: Show HN: X86CSS – An x86 CPU emulator written in CSS
#37I realy hope an AI did this intead of human, such a waste of time (the css part, not the x86)
This seems like a great use of time actually
Re: Show HN: X86CSS – An x86 CPU emulator written in CSS
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it was 8086 they would have written 8086
They write both. They write x86 repeatedly in the article and title, then show an instruction matrix that doesn't include, for example, the 468 CMPXCHG instructions or the crypto extensions PCLMULHQHQDQ instruction. Best I can guess, they mean 8086, which they think is equivalent to x86
Why is the 8086 not equivalent to x86? PCLMULHQHQDQ is from the CLMUL extension, which only began appearing in CPUs in the early 2010s - are CPUs from before then not x86?
Re: Show HN: X86CSS – An x86 CPU emulator written in CSS
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
8086 is x86 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86
The instruction matrix they provide only includes 8086 instructions, not 186, 286 etc, which are all x86, hence the x at the start. From that wikipedia article, "The term "x86" came into being because the names of several successors to Intel's 8086 processor end in "86", including the 80186, 80286, 80386 and 80486. Colloquially, their names were "186", "286", "386" and "486"."
That wikipedia article lists the 8086 in its "Chronology of x86 processors" section as an x86-16 CPU.
Re: Show HN: X86CSS – An x86 CPU emulator written in CSS
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
They write both. They write x86 repeatedly in the article and title, then show an instruction matrix that doesn't include, for example, the 468 CMPXCHG instructions or the crypto extensions PCLMULHQHQDQ instruction. Best I can guess, they mean 8086, which they think is equivalent to x86
Why is the 8086 not equivalent to x86? PCLMULHQHQDQ is from the CLMUL extension, which only began appearing in CPUs in the early 2010s - are CPUs from before then not x86?
x86 is an overarching group. Each processor is backwards compatible, I believe, so a 486 can run 8086 code, but they are not equivalent. If I download an x86 version of a program, I don't expect it to be written only in 8086 instructions