🚀 go-pugleaf

For status programs that wish to detect what sort of processor they
are running on, does anybody have the scoop on official detection
procedure for an 80486?   Assuming, for example, that one already knows
that one is on a 386 or better.  I already have code to detect
8086, 8088, 80186, 80286, 80386, 8087, 80287 and 80387 -- I want to make
it complete.
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473

In article <1990Jul19.025150.6150@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes:
>For status programs that wish to detect what sort of processor they
>are running on, does anybody have the scoop on official detection
>procedure for an 80486?   Assuming, for example, that one already knows
>that one is on a 386 or better.  I already have code to detect
>8086, 8088, 80186, 80286, 80386, 8087, 80287 and 80387 -- I want to make
>it complete.

PC Magazine, July 1990, pages 425-426, tells how to separate 80286s, 80386s,
80486s, and lesser chips.  It mentions a March 13 column that told how to
detect a math coprocessor, and promises a future column to identify math
coprocessor types.  It glosses over the method of separating the lesser chips:
8088s, 8086s, 80186s, and NEC V20s and V30s.  Apparently you know how to do
this (or at least some of it); could you share the method or a reference?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Dave Dodson		                             dodson@convex.COM
Convex Computer Corporation      Richardson, Texas      (214) 497-4234

In article <1990Jul19.025150.6150@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes:
>For status programs that wish to detect what sort of processor they
>are running on, does anybody have the scoop on official detection
>procedure for an 80486?   Assuming, for example, that one already knows
>that one is on a 386 or better.  I already have code to detect
>8086, 8088, 80186, 80286, 80386, 8087, 80287 and 80387 -- I want to make
>it complete.

I spoke with an engineer at SCO (whose remains unnamed) who sadly
told me that there was no way to tell an 80386 from an 80486.

SCO wanted to market a higher-priced version of Xenix for 80486, but they
could find no way to detect the difference.

Pete Gregory           : uucp:   uunet!bally!pete              |
Bally Systems          : domain: pete@bally.bally.com       ---|---
5270 Neil Rd, Suite 301: phone:  702-689-2485                  |
Reno, NV 89502         : FAX:    702-689-2417                  |

"God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever
believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."    John 3:16

In article <315@bally.Bally.COM> you write:
>I spoke with an engineer at SCO (whose remains unnamed) who sadly
>told me that there was no way to tell an 80386 from an 80486.

Had anyone at SCO bothered to read the Intel i486 Programmer's Reference,
they would have found several straightforward ways to tell the difference.
The Intel manual even gives sample code.

>SCO wanted to market a higher-priced version of Xenix for 80486, but they
>could find no way to detect the difference.

Sounds like it's just as well they couldn't figure out how.  What a crock
that would have been.

-- 
John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, +1 617 864 9650
johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {ima|lotus|spdcc}!esegue!johnl
Marlon Brando and Doris Day were born on the same day.

In article <315@bally.Bally.COM> pete@bally.UUCP (exilied in my own office) writes:
>In article <1990Jul19.025150.6150@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes:
>>For status programs that wish to detect what sort of processor they
>>are running on, does anybody have the scoop on official detection
>>procedure for an 80486?   Assuming, for example, that one already knows
>>that one is on a 386 or better.  I already have code to detect
>>8086, 8088, 80186, 80286, 80386, 8087, 80287 and 80387 -- I want to make
>>it complete.
>
>I spoke with an engineer at SCO (whose remains unnamed) who sadly
>told me that there was no way to tell an 80386 from an 80486.

I have some assembler source that claims to do the detection but I
have not tested it. If somebody wants to check it out please free to
ftp it from chyde.uwasa.fi (128.214.12.3). It is in pc/source and
called 80486.asm

-- 
== Harri Valkama ==============================================================
| harri.valkama@wmac00.uwasa.fi hv@uwasa.fi hv@flame.uwasa.fi hv@nic.funet.fi |
| University of Vaasa, PO BOX 700, 65101 VAASA, Finland (fax: +358 61 248465) |
= Moderating at chyde.uwasa.fi (128.214.12.3) & nic.funet.fi (128.214.6.100) ==

In article <1990Jul20.011633.1686@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us>,
johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes:
>In article <315@bally.Bally.COM> you write:
>>I spoke with an engineer at SCO (whose remains unnamed) who sadly
>>told me that there was no way to tell an 80386 from an 80486.
>
>Had anyone at SCO bothered to read the Intel i486 Programmer's Reference,
>they would have found several straightforward ways to tell the difference.
>The Intel manual even gives sample code.
>
>>SCO wanted to market a higher-priced version of Xenix for 80486, but they
>>could find no way to detect the difference.
>
>Sounds like it's just as well they couldn't figure out how.  What a crock
>that would have been.

Come on!  Give the SCO bashing a rest, will you.  

Now it's unsubstantiated rumors and snide asides.
How low will you people go?

-- Erik
   (erik@sgi.com)

Beware of the 486 detection method given in PC Magazine July 1990.

I just tried it, and attempts to access the 386 control register will
cause you to trap and abort in protected mode DOS systems like
DOS-Merge.

So far the only two methods I have had suggested are the method of
PC Magazine (try to set the cache write through bit in CR0 and see if
you did it) and the trap the Int 6 illegal OP trap yourself, and then try
to execute a 486 instruction.  See if you trap.

I don't like either of those methods.

Perhaps I will see if a test like PC magazine's will work if you make
sure that you don't do it in virtual 8086 mode.   You do want to know
if you have an 386 in virtual 8086 mode, because you can still use 32
bit registers in that mode.  I don't know if there's any special 486
power you would want in virtual 8086 mode or not.
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473

In article <315@bally.Bally.COM> pete@bally.UUCP (exilied in my own office) writes:
>In article <1990Jul19.025150.6150@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes:
>>For status programs that wish to detect what sort of processor they
>>are running on, does anybody have the scoop on official detection
>>procedure for an 80486?   Assuming, for example, that one already knows
>>that one is on a 386 or better.  I already have code to detect
>>8086, 8088, 80186, 80286, 80386, 8087, 80287 and 80387 -- I want to make
>>it complete.
>I spoke with an engineer at SCO (whose remains unnamed) who sadly
>told me that there was no way to tell an 80386 from an 80486.
>SCO wanted to market a higher-priced version of Xenix for 80486, but they
>could find no way to detect the difference.
>Pete Gregory           : uucp:   uunet!bally!pete              |

  In my Infoplus program, the 286/386/486 are detected by trapping the
invalid opcode interrupt, and then trying instructions. For the 486, I use
XADD DX,DX. This is new on the 486, and exchanges the registers before
doing the addition.
  For the 386, I now use MOV EDX,EDX, which is 32-bit do-nothing! (It used
to use an instruction that read some special registers. This caused major
problems with most EMS emulators!)
  For the 286, it tries the SMSW DX instruction (whatever that does.)
  The code come from a program by Robert Collins, and I just made a few
changes to fit INFOPLUS (and fix the 386 problem!)
  If anyone is interested, I can email a copy, or post it.

Andrew Rossmann
andyross@ddsw1.MCS.COM

In article <315@bally.Bally.COM> pete@bally.UUCP (exilied in my own office) writes:

| I spoke with an engineer at SCO (whose remains unnamed) who sadly
| told me that there was no way to tell an 80386 from an 80486.
| 
| SCO wanted to market a higher-priced version of Xenix for 80486, but they
| could find no way to detect the difference.

  This is a lot of hogwash. There are several instructions in the 486
not in the 386, and a number of other instructions which have diferent
timing between the two processors. Detecting which you have is a
reasonable things to do. Oh, and the 486 has some FPU instructions not
in the 387, so you could tell that way, too.

  Either he's incompetent or you misunderstood him.

  Perhaps he meant that the 486 offers nothing but speed over the 386
from a standpoint of actual capability, and SCO didn't see a way to
market a version with extra features which would justify a separate
product.
-- 
bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen)
    sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX
    moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me