Re: lock a pentium for fun!

[Dan Hugo <dhugo@reallycool.com>]

I hat to be naive, but I've read a little bit about this bug (first on
www.news.com, and very little more on www.x86.org) and there is one
thing that is vague:

Are Pentium Pro and/or Pentium II also effected by this bug?

I would try it on my pro system, but I would rather not have to reset in
the name of discovery if someone already knows the answer...



Ben Pfaff wrote:
> 
> 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.


--
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 .