Re: lock a pentium for fun!
George Bonser <grep@oriole.sbay.org> writes:
> 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.
Oh, yeah, duh. I thought you meant that there should not be any
instructions that are not useful; i.e., every possible byte value
should have a defined purpose. Now that you've explained, it makes
more sense.
--
Ben Pfaff <pfaffben@pilot.msu.edu> <blp@gnu.org> <pfaffben@debian.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
debian-user-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: