From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262948AbUBZTRk (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:17:40 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262962AbUBZTQr (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:16:47 -0500 Received: from kinesis.swishmail.com ([209.10.110.86]:65030 "EHLO kinesis.swishmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262927AbUBZTO7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:14:59 -0500 Message-ID: <403E481E.7060609@techsource.com> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:25:18 -0500 From: Timothy Miller MIME-Version: 1.0 To: root@chaos.analogic.com CC: Chris Wedgwood , "Nakajima, Jun" , richard.brunner@amd.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Intel vs AMD64 References: <7F740D512C7C1046AB53446D37200173EA28A5@scsmsx402.sc.intel.com> <20040226133959.GA19254@dingdong.cryptoapps.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Richard B. Johnson wrote: > Whether or not the CPU traps this invalid instruction is moot. No > compiler would emit junk like this and anybody horsing around with > an assembler deserves whatever they get, although you shouldn't > be able to smoke the CPU on a multi-user multitasking system because > it can be used as a DOS attack. If this is junk that's invalid, why was it mentioned in the first place?