Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:29797 comp.sys.intel:830
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!sun!imagen!atari!portal!cup.portal.com!mslater
From: mslater@cup.portal.com (Michael Z Slater)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: 80286, 80386 LOADALL instructions.
Message-ID: <19154@cup.portal.com>
Date: 6 Jun 89 02:52:21 GMT
References: <30105@conexch.UUCP> <213@guardian.UUCP>
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Lines: 23

>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.

I've heard the same thing about the 386 LOADALL, and indeed, as I understand
it, there is no good reason to use it anyway.  The 286 LOADALL, on the
other hand, is genuinely useful, and widely used.  I think it is absurd
that Intel has refused to publicly document it.

Incidentally, I published full details on the 286 loadall in the Oct. 87
issue of Microprocessor Report.  I'm working on a 386 LOADALL article, and
would appreciate any input users may have.  As I said above, my 
understanding at this point is that it should not be used, but I think
programmers should be able to make their own decisions.  Also, if Intel
gives the info to some companies and not others, it creates an unfair
situation.

Michael Slater, Editor and Publisher, Microprocessor Report
550 California Ave., Suite 320, Palo Alto, CA 94306
mslater@cup.portal.com   415/494-2677  fax: 415/494-3718