Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 10:43:19 -0800 (PST) From: jdp@polstra.com To: stable@freebsd.org Cc: Cy.Schubert@uumail.gov.bc.ca Subject: Re: F00F-HACK still necessary? Message-ID: <200010291843.e9TIhJG15929@vashon.polstra.com> In-Reply-To: <200010291602.e9TG25B01059@cwsys.cwsent.com> References: <200010291602.e9TG25B01059@cwsys.cwsent.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <200010291602.e9TG25B01059@cwsys.cwsent.com>, Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group <Cy.Schubert@uumail.gov.bc.ca> wrote: > NO_F00F_HACK is only effective with the original Pentium. If you > define i686_CPU, NO_F00F_HACK is implied. Close, but not quite right. If you _don't_ define I586_CPU then NO_F00F_HACK is implied. John -- John Polstra jdp@polstra.com John D. Polstra & Co., Inc. Seattle, Washington USA "Disappointment is a good sign of basic intelligence." -- Chögyam Trungpa To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200010291843.e9TIhJG15929>