Re: [OT] fpu IRQ x86-ism

From: H. Peter Anvin (hpa@transmeta.com)
Date: Mon Mar 06 2000 - 16:57:33 EST

Next message: Alan Cox: "Re: Allow debuger to examine real parent"
Previous message: Keith Owens: "Re: 2.3.49 rmmod broken + unkillable process"
In reply to: nathan.zook@amd.com: "RE: [OT] fpu IRQ x86-ism"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

nathan.zook@amd.com wrote:
>
> I work for AMD. Which means "we" do. =:-O
>
> Do you emulate compatibility mode over at Transmeta?
>

This was a discussion on linux-kernel, so "we" logically imply Linux. I
wasn't talking about CPUs or chipsets.

Someone's comment after I described this to them: "Intel -- putting
`backwards' into `backwards compatible'..."

-hpa

-- <hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Alan Cox: "Re: Allow debuger to examine real parent"
Previous message: Keith Owens: "Re: 2.3.49 rmmod broken + unkillable process"
In reply to: nathan.zook@amd.com: "RE: [OT] fpu IRQ x86-ism"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 21:00:21 EST