🚀 go-pugleaf

James Woodward wrote:
> 
> Peter B. West <p.west@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> > Teng-Wen Chang wrote:
> > >
> > > Ian Kent wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Its on www.redhat.com if you look hard and long enough. I think it was
> > > > 2.0.31. No mention of the FO fix though( that I saw).
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 25 Nov 1997 09:06:36 +0800, chris mcdonald
> > > > <chris@cs.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >I know that Redhat are often very shy about their own publicity (before
> > > > >the
> > > > >fact), but does anyone know which kernel will be shipping with Redhat
> > > > >5.0?
> > > > >2.0.32?  With the FO fix?
> > > > >
> > > If you look at the RPMS directory, you will find out it's 2.0.32. I
> > > will assume that it will be stupid without the FO fix.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, it's RPM, so you can just get the updated kernel RPM
> > > and "rpm -Uvh xxxx.rpm" ;)
> > >
> > > -tengwen-
> 
> > OK, I can't stand it any more!  What does the FO fix, fix?
> 
> I maybe wrong but i think its a bug with the Pentium 166 and 200 MMX CPU's which could cause a crash if a particular register is accessed or something :)
> 

An illegal opcode which would immediately crash pentium/pentMMXes
requiring a hard reset. :(

> Note. only affects INTEL MMX chips.. seems ya get a free bug with every Intel
> chip these days...
> 

Actually all pentium and pentium MMX chips. All speeds, all types. But
not the non-intel ones. 


Michael Smith

> hehe
> 
> the FO bug was also often referred to the F00F bug.
> 
> --
> 
> James Woodward
>     ______ ____ ____  __
>     \__  / \  / \   \/  \     email: jim@jim.southcom.com.au
>       / /  / /  / /\  /\ \           jim@hitcamp48.dvet.tas.gov.au
> /\___/ /  / /  / /  \/ / /
> \_____/   \/   \/      \/       www: http://www.southcom.com.au/~caffeine