Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 21:01:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom <tom@sdf.com> To: Tony Kimball <Anthony.Kimball@East.Sun.COM> Cc: michaelv@MindBender.serv.net, freebsd-chat@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: supermicro p6sns/p6sas Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970929205250.5247A-100000@misery.sdf.com> In-Reply-To: <199709291920.OAA25886@compound.east.sun.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 29 Sep 1997, Tony Kimball wrote: > Quoth Tom on Mon, 29 September: > : > : The Pentium division bug was fixed long ago. And Intel gave free > : replacements to everyone. > > Yes. Similarly, by all reports, the K6 bug is fixed, and free > replacements are available. I have to wonder whether Intel would have > offered the free replacements if the division bug had not been so well > publicized, but can only speculate and/or compare past vendor > behaviour. Yes, but you have to apply for each replacement. Replacements for known broken versions are not automatic. > : What? The "make world" problems were VERY serious. Simple operations > : in gcc were being preformed incorrectly sometimes, causing core dumps. > : Such failures appeared in all kinds of other software as well. > > Well, not all kinds. I understand that the various flavors of Windows > are not known to demonstrate the bug. Seriousness in real-world terms I don't know about that. Application errors and GPFs are much more common on K6 CPUs, from experience. Why? I can't say. But the fact that gcc dumps core randomly on the same CPU makes wonder if it the same problem. Win95 hardly provides detailed error reports. > means loss of life/limb/property. Wasted time is one form of partial > loss of life, and certainly having to type 'make world' again is a > waste of time, but a floating-point error in an embedded system could Waste of time? A little more than that. A make world would NOT EVER complete on such a CPU. DG has demonstrated this bug, and described it to the list. He has a K6 that will not complete a make world ever. At the time, he could not even return it. > crash your airliner or slam your missile into a hospital. Again, > relatively weighting the seriousness of the bugs in practice, I'd have > to say that the major losses incurred in each case were those of the > manufacturer. Certainly Intel lost more money on the division bug, > but then they made more on the sales in the first place. The whole > issue seems pretty subjective/hypothetical: No actual airliners ever > used a pentium in a critical component to my knowledge, or if they did Hmmm, I remember a componet of flight control gear on a boeing airliner used Intel CPUs. I think they could have still been using 486 processors, because the design lead period was so long. This was a while back. I read it in a design case study in a journal somewhere. Tom
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95q.970929205250.5247A-100000>