Yeah. I have seen it.
A couple of questions/remarks:
-is this legal ? I remember contacting MC regarding making MC68000 in FPGA
some years ago and their answer was a firm NO- they would not allow me to
use 68000 ISA.
- there is a related project somewhere, called IIRC V68000, which has the
same
[ql-developers] K68 Core
>
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:50:51 +0200, BRANE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Yeah. I have seen it.
> >
> > A couple of questions/remarks:
> >
> > -is this legal ? I remember contacting MC regarding making MC68000
- Original Message -
From: "Phoebus Dokos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 1:12 AM
Subject: Re: [ql-developers] K68 Core
>
> And it will take sometime until you get one if any :-)
> Nonetheless, the problem is that a MIPS won't do us (QLers) any go
- Original Message -
From: "Phoebus Dokos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 2:04 AM
Subject: Re: [ql-developers] K68 Core
> Or as Zeljko suggested a Crusoe (which is not crap) :-)
> However because of their NDAs, binding agreements etc. it's out o
> StrongARM?
>
IMHO not nearlz powerfull enough for this and not so easily obtainable. Only
Intel makes those 200+ MHz chips, others like Atmel etc make much slower
units
- Original Message -
From: "Peter Graf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 9:53 PM
Subject: Re: [ql-developers] Massive amount of job state transitions and
re-scheduling
>
> Thierry wrote:
>
> >Yes, this I know, thanks... I'm perfectly aware of
- Original Message -
From: "Peter Graf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 12:05 AM
Subject: Re: [ql-developers] Massive amount of job state transitions and
re-scheduling
>
> BRANE wrote:
>
> >> Simp
- Original Message -
From: "BRANE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 1:03 AM
Subject: Re: [ql-developers] Massive amount of job state transitions and
re-scheduling
> Besides, I find it a bit hard to believe that av
>
> don't forget this is a rather simple TCP/IP implementation and apparently
> it is already hard enough to make the simplest variant working reliably
> with the garden variety of TCP/IP implementations out there.
>
> Richard
O.K. I'm not following this thread from beginning, so I don't know exa
