Re: NOT urgent: 586 assumptions?

[Daniel Quinlan]

[ Please don't Cc: me when replying to this message on a mailing list ]

Joost Witteveen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 I used to have a CYRIX 486, that gave me floating point errors.
 This apparently was due to a bug in the CYRIX (wasn't there with
 other 486's or pentiums).

I have worked on an AMD 486 that had a floating point bug that always
caused ghostscript to fail.  Replacing the CPU fixed the problem.
 
 Are there vital packages (like libc maybe?) that are compiled with
 the assumption of a Pentium processor?  I've lately (approximately
 but not exactly since I upgraded to libc 5.4.2x) started having
 machine failures with untrappable divide-by-zero errors.  The
 machine is a 3 year old 486/33, so it's quite possibly hardware,
 but it struck me as something that could possibly be due to a
 change in libc or the like... maybe?  ideas? help!

You have to be more specific than this in a problem report.  You
*must* be able to tell us more about the problem.  You didn't even
mention basic information such as who manufactured the CPU.

Dan


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: NOT urgent: 586 assumptions?

[joost witteveen]

Why is this URGENT? although quite a few people use 486's none
have reported problems like your's so it isn't all that urgent I think.

But, to give more info about your question:
I used to have a CYRIX 486, that gave me floating point errors.
This apparently was due to a bug in the CYRIX (wasn't there with
other 486's or pentiums).

And, to reassure you: I've got quite a few 486-33 computers running here
with rahter recent unstable installations, none of them give 
divide-by-zero errors.

 
 Are there vital packages (like libc maybe?) that are compiled with 
 the assumption of a Pentium processor?  I've lately (approximately 
 but not exactly since I upgraded to libc 5.4.2x) started having 
 machine failures with untrappable divide-by-zero errors.  The machine 
 is a 3 year old 486/33, so it's quite possibly hardware, but it struck
 me as something that could possibly be due to a change in libc or
 the like... maybe?  ideas? help!
 
  --Zachary
 
 
 --
 TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
 Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
 


-- 
joost witteveen, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
#!/bin/perl -sp0777iX+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0j]dsj
$/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$kSK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1
lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/)


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .