[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: NOT urgent: 586 assumptions?



[ Please don't Cc: me when replying to this message on a mailing list ]

Joost Witteveen <joost@rulcmc.leidenuniv.nl> writes:

> I used to have a CYRIX 486, that gave me floating point errors.
> This apparently was due to a bug in the CYRIX (wasn't there with
> other 486's or pentiums).

I have worked on an AMD 486 that had a floating point bug that always
caused ghostscript to fail.  Replacing the CPU fixed the problem.
 
>> Are there vital packages (like libc maybe?) that are compiled with
>> the assumption of a Pentium processor?  I've lately (approximately
>> but not exactly since I upgraded to libc 5.4.2x) started having
>> machine failures with untrappable divide-by-zero errors.  The
>> machine is a 3 year old 486/33, so it's quite possibly hardware,
>> but it struck me as something that could possibly be due to a
>> change in libc or the like... maybe?  ideas? help!

You have to be more specific than this in a problem report.  You
*must* be able to tell us more about the problem.  You didn't even
mention basic information such as who manufactured the CPU.

Dan


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-user-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .


Reply to: