Date:	Thu, 5 Aug 1999 18:01:23 +0300 (IDT)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: CPU ID program, second version
In-Reply-To:	<37A96C09.95FC9A2@softhome.net>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.990805175845.16775A-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Thu, 5 Aug 1999, Laurynas Biveinis wrote:

> > Also, your switch statement is incomplete -- add a default case and
> > call it "ix86" or something like that.
> 
> It currently handles all cases - first CPU's with CPUID instruction
> are 486 and Pentiums. And currently there is no CPU which reports
> bigger value in "instruction family" field than 0x6 (for i686).

Nevertheless, switch statements with no default are generally a bad 
idea.  A library function shouldn't have undefined behavior in
unforseen circumstances.

I think returning i486 as the default in the last switch is good 
enough.  Do you agree?

- Raw text -