Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!samsung!interlan.InterLan.COM!interlan.interlan.com!dave From: dave@interlan.Interlan.COM (Dave Goldblatt) Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d Subject: Re: v09i191: popadbug, test for 386 CPU bug Message-ID: Date: 5 Jan 91 22:04:43 GMT References: <336@aplcomm.JHUAPL.EDU> <1991Jan5.000042.19703@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> <3799@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> Sender: news@interlan.Interlan.COM (No News is BAD News) Reply-To: dave@interlan.interlan.com Organization: Racal InterLan, Inc., Boxborough, MA (1-800-LAN-TALK) Lines: 28 In-Reply-To: williams@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu's message of 5 Jan 91 15:17:09 GMT Nntp-Posting-Host: slam.interlan.com In article <3799@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> williams@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams) writes: The POPAD bug is, I think, documented in the Intel Errata sheets. As near as I can tell, some of the register contents are invalid at the instruction just after a POPAD. You can insert a NOP, or any kind of branch and you're OK. This seems to be the case. Take a pill and chill, dudes. All 386en probably fail the POPAD test, and it don't matter. It may not be cause for great concern, especially since there are very few 386 compilers being used for production code. HOWEVER, for those of us who program in assembler, this is definitely something to be aware of. The 1990 version of the _386DX Programmer's Reference Manual_ makes no statement of this. Not surprising (in fact, par for the course), so you should regularly request the errata sheets. But it *might* matter. -dg- -- "Never, I repeat never, * Dave Goldblatt [dave@interlan.com] give peace a chance!" * Diagnostic Engineering - _Zarlor Mercenary_, * Racal InterLan Atari Corp. (Lynx) * Boxborough MA (508) 263-9929