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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
