Re: lock a pentium for fun!
If the instruction set is changed, the CPU part number should change. In other
words, future extentions should be IMPOSSIBLE. Unused opcodes should execute a
NOP or an instruction that causes the currently executing program to terminate
in a known condition ... HALT? In this way, Pentium-N code running on a
Pentium-(<N) processor does not cause harm. When an instruction set is
expanded, the processor part number should change.
On 09-Nov-97 Ben Pfaff wrote:
> email@example.com writes:
>> Ted writes:
>> > Someone wondered (as one does) what might possibly happen if you tried
>> > the unassigned codes.
>> It is a bug for a processor to have any unassigned codes.
> In what way is it a bug? If all the codes are assigned, then future
> extensions become impossible.
> Ben Pfaff <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Senders of unsolicited commercial e-mail will receive free 32MB core files!
> TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
> email@example.com .
> Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .