Lars Brinkhoff writes:
> Jon Steinhart wrote:
> > The 32032 made sense for the workstation division based on the data sheets.
> > But, it turned out to be extremely buggy, and unlike the 68K I don't recall
> > the ability to look at and patch the state of the microcode.
>
> Did you have the ability to look at and patch the state of 68000
> microcode?  How?

My memory is very very very fuzzy on this.  I seem to recall that microcode
state was pushed onto a stack in certain cases, and that it was possible to
fix some problems there for certain weird cases relating to memory management.
That's all that I remember about it as that's not the part of things that I
was working on, just heard grumbles from other folks about it.

Jon