Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!uunet!majipoor.cygnus.com!cambridge-news.cygnus.com!athena.mit.edu!raeburn From: raeburn@athena.mit.edu (Ken Raeburn) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.bugs Subject: Re: kernel writes to user space (was Re: Nethack) Date: 2 Jul 1993 01:15:05 GMT Organization: Cygnus Support, Cambridge MA Lines: 18 Message-ID: <RAEBURN.93Jul1211447@cambridge.cygnus.com> References: <20bfrm$le7@pdq.coe.montana.edu> <C990xF.43n@sneaky.lonestar.org> <1993Jun29.181749.5833@fcom.cc.utah.edu> <20qqgu$dj@werple.apana.org.au> <1993Jun30.022629.24466@uvm.edu> <C9GMzD.B6@veda.is> NNTP-Posting-Host: cambridge.cygnus.com In-reply-to: adam@veda.is's message of 1 Jul 93 00:35:22 GMT In article <C9GMzD.B6@veda.is> adam@veda.is (Adam David) writes: wollman@trantor.emba.uvm.edu (Garrett Wollman) writes: >Isn't there a flag bit you can turn on on a *4*86, which tells the MMU >to behave in a sane manner? If so, then perhaps someone ought to >write code to take advantage of this, triggered by defined(i486) && >!defined(i386). i486 is a superset of i386, so it does not make much sense to define i486 without also defining i386. Therefore defined(i486) should be enough of a test. That doesn't distinguish between a build for a machine that *will* have a 486 (and therefore doesn't need the 386 version) and a build of a generic kernel for machines that *might* have 486s (and therefore might want to take advantage of it if it does, but still might have to support the 386). I'd suggest a separate "486-only" flag.