I just tracked down a post to this mailing list from Tommy Lakofski that wasn't on this thread, stating (from the linux.advocacy newsgroup) that the problem is P5 only and does not effect PPro or PII.
I guess that's reassuring... -dh Dan Hugo wrote: > > 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] . -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
