Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site enmasse.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!enmasse!dave
From: dave@enmasse.UUCP (Dave Brownell)
Newsgroups: net.micro.68k
Subject: Re: Re: PDP11s vs the micros
Message-ID: <464@enmasse.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 31-Dec-69 18:59:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: enmasse.464
Posted: Wed Dec 31 18:59:59 1969
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Sep-85 04:48:35 EDT
References: <1617@hao.UUCP> <847@mako.UUCP> <2422@sun.uucp> <2607@sun.uucp> <5874@utzoo.UUCP> <492@oakhill.UUCP> <290@frog.UUCP> <3233@nsc.UUCP>
Reply-To: dave@enmasse.UUCP (Dave Brownell)
Organization: Enmasse Computer Corp., Acton, Mass.
Lines: 12

In article <3233@nsc.UUCP> freund@nsc.UUCP (Bob Freund) writes:
> ... it
> is possible that a task be re-started on a different processor than
> the one that faulted.  If there is any difference in the micro-state
> between cpu revision levels, it could happen that the restart would
> fail due to incompatible micro-state.  Does Motorola guarantee
> micro-state compatibility across revision levels?  ...

At least one company that I know of had this problem.  Using MC68010s,
the problem was that some internal state bits might not be set
identically; Motorola gave a few instructions to execute that would
guarantee that all the state bits were identical on all processors.