Re: Cyrix "coma bug" fix was deleted from pre-2.3.10-4

Aaron Tiensivu (mojomofo@ctechnix.com)
Tue, 6 Jul 1999 22:39:35 -0400

On Tue, Jul 06, 1999 at 02:14:59PM -0700, B. James Phillippe wrote:
> > > Also, does this mean the distributions (e.g. Redhat? :) are going to
> > > detect the CPU type on start-up and run set6x86 appropriately? No, I
> > > didn't think so..
>
> Ah, but nobody cares about Cyrix systems. In fact, we're aiming for an
> Intel-only society. Therefore, it's only natural that the scores of flaws
> in Intel CPU's will be fixed up on bootup, and everybody else can just
> suffer or buy Intel.
>
> [yes I'm jesting, if it's not obvious. I don't even own an x86; my box is
> an Alpha. but I still think the known x86 bugs should be fixed up on
> bootup]

Hmm... actually, I think the coma bug fixup stuff was yanked because it
was causing more trouble than what it was fixing. The original Pentium
fix changed around a few times too.

I agree that Cyrix uses basically get 3rd class treatment but if Cyrix
would have made things a little more sane in their chips, there wouldn't
be these problems. The RDTSC stuff and 'hidden' CpuId stuff comes to mind.

And now that Via has bought Cyrix, Via can help put more bugs into the
Jalepeno core just like VIAs chipsets. ;-)

--
Which is worse, ignorance or apathy? Who knows? Who cares?
I'm not a perfectionist, but I'm working on it.




-
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/