From owner-freebsd-current Fri Apr 19 17:11:24 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id RAA12724 for current-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 17:11:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA12719 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 17:11:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id RAA11299; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 17:05:07 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199604200005.RAA11299@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: gzipped executables To: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 17:05:07 -0700 (MST) Cc: nate@sri.MT.net, terry@lambert.org, kuku@gilberto.physik.rwth-aachen.de, freebsd-current@freefall.freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <2993.829958579@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at Apr 19, 96 05:02:59 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > > If this is the case, why did it used to work on Pentium processors? > > > > It also ignores the fact that it also fails on my 486/DX2.. :-) > > Sorry, just to clarify what I meant here since I can see how Terry > would read the above and say "say what?! I was saying that it only > failed on *Pentium* processors due to their differing cache > architecture! I never said *anything* about the 486!" I expressed my > point poorly. Nevertheless, I understood your intent. No clarification was needed. > What I *meant* to say was that it used to work on all the Intel > processor types then began failing on all of them at the same time, > from the 486 to the Pentium. This doesn't lead me to believe that the > failure is related to any particular processor or cache architecture > so much as it is a simple bug which has crept in and whacked the gzip > emulator. And all I was saying is that dumping the cache queue makes it work again, regardless of *why* this happens, it *does* happen, and can be used by the original poster as a "fix". I took the care I did in puting forth my working hypothesis because I think it would be stupid to integrate the cache queue dumping as "*the* fix". Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.