From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <6e35c0620510292241q4efd9e48h8b60cae7c3d63744@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 22:41:20 -0700
From: Jack Johnson <knapjack@gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] 386
In-Reply-To: <436418E1.9050706@lanl.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <12f7bf2af3e9fd212dd65a508a614428@plan9.bell-labs.com>
	<4363EEDC.6090806@lanl.gov>
	<8ccc8ba40510291531k192e4bcenb4e556e137ea14fa@mail.gmail.com>
	<436418E1.9050706@lanl.gov>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: a1f9734a-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On 10/29/05, Ronald G Minnich <rminnich@lanl.gov> wrote:
> Francisco J Ballesteros wrote:
> > I=B4d say that it=B4d be even reasonable to assume a pentium at least.
>
> well, you'll break all the amd sc520's out there, and geodes (maybe), so
> that's my only worry with that one.

It would also be good to ensure that we don't break all the Via C3s
and the (possibly incomplete) emulated Pentium in Bochs, QEMU, etc.

-Jack