From owner-freebsd-questions  Thu Jul 20 12:44:47 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from manatee.mammalia.org (manatee.mammalia.org [216.231.50.6])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6006F37C0F0
	for <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org>; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 12:44:44 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from rjoseph@mammalia.org)
Received: by manatee.mammalia.org (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 329AF11CD28; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 12:44:42 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 12:44:42 -0700
From: R Joseph Wright <rjoseph@mammalia.org>
To: Dan Nelson <dnelson@emsphone.com>
Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: Kernel option NO_F00F_HACK
Message-ID: <20000720124442.A5854@manatee.mammalia.org>
References: <397722AD.427D36AE@gmx.de> <20000720120731.B1377@dan.emsphone.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i
In-Reply-To: <20000720120731.B1377@dan.emsphone.com>; from dnelson@emsphone.com on Thu, Jul 20, 2000 at 12:07:31PM -0500
Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

On Thu, Jul 20, 2000 at 12:07:31PM -0500, Dan Nelson wrote:
> In the last episode (Jul 20), Siegbert Baude said:
> > Hi,
> > is this kernel option a workaround for a known Pentium bug (feature?
> > :-) )? If so did Intel remove this bug in newer chips? Or asked in a
> > different way: Is this option still necessary for all generations of
> > Pentiums from Pentium 60 to Pentium III 1 GHz?
> 
> All 586-class chips from Intel suffer from the bug afaik.  The pII and
> pIII aren't Pentiums for the purposes of the F00F test, they're
> 686-class CPUs.  Blame Intel for their goofy naming scheme ("haha!
> we'll stop using numbers at all, and call everything Pentium from now
> on!")

That option has always been rejected by config whenever I have tried to use
it <shrug />.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message