Re: lock a pentium for fun!
George Bonser <firstname.lastname@example.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
Ben Pfaff <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
Senders of unsolicited commercial e-mail will receive free 32MB core files!
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .