Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 13:18:02 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 13:17:52 -0500 Received: from adsl-63-194-89-126.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net ([63.194.89.126]:18700 "HELO skull.piratehaven.org") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 13:17:47 -0500 Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 10:12:48 -0800 From: Brian Pomerantz To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Alan Cox , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Pentium 4 and 2.4/2.5 Message-ID: <20001108101248.A8902@skull.piratehaven.org> Mail-Followup-To: Linus Torvalds , Alan Cox , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: X-homepage: http://www.piratehaven.org/~bapper/ Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 10:10:45AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Now, I could imagine that Intel would select an instruction that didn't > work on Athlon on purpose, but I really don't think they did. I don't > have an athlon to test. > > It's easy enough to generate a test-program. If the following works, > you're pretty much guaranteed that it's ok > > int main() > { > printf("Testing 'rep nop' ... "); > asm volatile("rep ; nop"); > printf("okey-dokey\n"); > return 0; > } > > (there's not much a "rep nop" _can_ do, after all - the most likely CPU > extension would be to raise an "Illegal Opcode" fault). > Just for the curious, this works on Athlons. :) BAPper - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/