🚀 go-pugleaf

Zootal <nospam@spam.zootal.nospam.com> wrote
>Kadaitcha Man <anon@no.email> wrote in news:7gj5sf$znu$5@shameless-loose-
>bodied-woman.co.equatorial-guinea:
>
>> "Zootal", thou balloon-headed velvet guard. I can hardly forbear hurling
>> things at thee. Ye chided:
>> 
>>>> Translation: Linux is always compiled for the absolute lowest common
>>>> denominator. If your processor is a 1985 386-SX, Linux is guaranteed to
>>>> run on it.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I wouldn't bet it would run on a 386 unless the kernel was specifically
>>> compiled<BITCHSLAP>
>> 
>> Idiot.
>> 
>>> I have an old 386 machine in my basement that I've been meaning to load
>>> linux on just to see how it performs. I don't know what I would do with
>>> it after that, and I must admit it's pretty low on my to-do list...
>> 
>> Thanks for sharing.
>
>Ignoramus. What happens when you boot a 386 with a kernel compiled for a 
>Pentium? I'm betting you don't know because you never tried it. Guess what 
>happens when an attempt is made to execute a Pentium+ specific instruction 
>on a 386 (bswap, xadd, etc.)? If it doesn't go off on a wab (you do know 
>what a wab is, don't you?), and if the kernel doesn't stop the attempt to 
>execute, I'm guessing the instruction decoder would barf. Wab, kernel 
>panic, or lockup. Take your choice (I don't remember what the 386 does in 
>this case, but it's not good lol).
>
>Anyone here actually tried a kernel compiled for a Pentium+ on a 386?

I have roasted chestnuts on an overclocked 386 while running Win7
-- 
Roger Hunt