Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:29670 comp.sys.intel:823
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!think!husc6!ogccse!littlei!guardian!peter
From: peter@guardian.UUCP (peter)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: 80286, 80386 LOADALL instructions.
Summary: 80386 LOADALL will vanish
Keywords: LOADALL 80386
Message-ID: <213@guardian.UUCP>
Date: 2 Jun 89 16:14:42 GMT
References: <30105@conexch.UUCP>
Reply-To: peter@langlab1.hf.intel.com (Peter Plamondon)
Organization: Intel Development Tools Operation, Hillsboro OR
Lines: 18

In article <30105@conexch.UUCP> rob@conexch.UUCP (Robert Collins) writes:
>What about the 80386 version of LOADALL (Opcode 0f07).  Does anybody have
>the document on that?
>Is it appropriate to post this document?

Although I don't speak for Intel and have no involvement with the chip
designers, I've heard from a reliable source that future steppings of the
Intel386(tm) will NOT recognize the LOADALL instruction.  Intel is rewriting
all 386 software which includes LOADALL; I suspect the gang in Redmond is
doing the same, but that's pure speculation.  I'd strongly encourage everyone
to avoid using LOADALL on a 386.

>Since I didn't get these documents by signing a non-disclosure agreement,
>would I be breaking any law, or implicit contract by posting them?

I'm specifically NOT responding to this question; I have no idea what
restrictions, if any, were once or are now placed on the distribution of the
LOADALL documentation.