Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1999 13:58:03 +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: <37AB3F5C.DB89CDD0@softhome.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990808135731.23423I-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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
Precedence: bulk


On Fri, 6 Aug 1999, Laurynas Biveinis wrote:

> I still think that my code is OK, because those environments are really
> rare and if particular environment does not allow to set AC flag, maybe
> it has serious reasons for this?

Your code is good, Morten simply suggested to place a warning in the
docs that some weird environments could defeat the function.  Since
there's no way of overcoming these problems except in ring-0 code, and
since the majority of environments do let the code work correctly,
this is not a major problem, just a minor limitation.  We should
document it and continue.

> i786 would be good, but I somehow do not want to predict still 
> unreleased CPU :)

I agree.  i486 should be a safer choice in those cases.  It is also
better, as it will prompt people who have i986 to complain and fix the
code ;-).