Dave Jones wrote:
quoted text
> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 07:48:03PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>  > 
>  > On Wednesday 2008-05-28 18:57, Dave Jones wrote:
>  > 
>  > >Trying to boot a 64-bit kernel on a 32bit Pentium 4 gets
>  > >you an amusing message along the lines of.
>  > >"you need an x86-64, but you only have an i1586"
>  > >due to the P4 being family F.  Munge it to be 686.
>  > 
>  > What is wrong with it? If i386, 486, 586 and 686 are valid names,
>  > why should not 786 (or rather 1586... since someone thought it
>  > would be cool to jump the number^1) be?
> 
> When you find the Intel literature that refers to the '786' or the '1586',
> feel free to send a patch. In the meantime, we'll refer to it as
> the rest of the world does.

Actually, I have seen some Intel literature talking about the 786.  This 
was back when the 486 was new, and they wanted to impress how advanced 
their roadmap was.  Needless to say, it was completely bogus.

	-hpa
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/