From owner-freebsd-questions Thu Jul 20 16:55:37 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 7C74137B82A for ; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 16:55:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rjoseph@mammalia.org) Received: by manatee.mammalia.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E4FBD11CD28; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 16:55:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 16:55:32 -0700 From: R Joseph Wright To: Mike Meyer Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Kernel option NO_F00F_HACK Message-ID: <20000720165532.B6374@manatee.mammalia.org> References: <14711.34634.730066.221657@guru.mired.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: <14711.34634.730066.221657@guru.mired.org>; from mwm@mired.org on Thu, Jul 20, 2000 at 06:12:10PM -0500 Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, Jul 20, 2000 at 06:12:10PM -0500, Mike Meyer wrote: > > From: R Joseph Wright > > 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 . > > Strange. Are you sure you're spelling it right (with two zeros, not > letter Os)? I've never built a kernel without it. > Aaahh...now that you mention zeros.... To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message