From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Apr 23 08:25:35 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA16560 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 08:25:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from phoenix.its.rpi.edu (dec@phoenix.its.rpi.edu [128.113.161.45]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA16420 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 08:25:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dec@phoenix.its.rpi.edu) Received: from localhost (dec@localhost) by phoenix.its.rpi.edu (8.8.8/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA11589; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 11:25:06 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from dec@phoenix.its.rpi.edu) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 11:25:05 -0400 (EDT) From: "David E. Cross" To: Alfred Perlstein cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Protected mode instructions which reduce to noop. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > i'm seriously doubtful of this. i think intels throw instr fault > exceptions when stuff like that is executed. > > -Alfred > > On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, David E. Cross wrote: > > > Awhile ago it was discussed about implimenting a VM type architecture on > > intel, and it was agreed that this would be very difficult because intel > > had decided that instead of throwing an illegal instruction exception for > > protected mode instructions that were not run as supervisor, it would > > simply reduce the instriction to NOOP. What are these instructions. > > Heh, I just read my own post... it was not *all* protected mode instructions, but *some* of them. -- David Cross To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message