Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 18:12:10 -0500 (CDT) From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Kernel option NO_F00F_HACK Message-ID: <14711.34634.730066.221657@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <bulk.49797.20000720153139@hub.freebsd.org> References: <bulk.49797.20000720153139@hub.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> From: R Joseph Wright <rjoseph@mammalia.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!")
Intel changed it when they found out that the US IP laws wouldn't let
you trademark numbers. So AMD could create an AMD-486, and there
wasn't anything they could do about it from a legal perspective.
However, they still have to get trademarks for each new Pentium
(unless the laws have changed). Pentium(TM) doesn't cover Pentium II,
etc. If anyone is interested in trying trademark squatting, they could
check on Pentium IV or V or ....
> That option has always been rejected by config whenever I have tried to use
> it <shrug />.
Strange. Are you sure you're spelling it right (with two zeros, not
letter Os)? I've never built a kernel without it.
<mike
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?14711.34634.730066.221657>