[comp.sys.intel] 386 problems

m5@lynx.uucp (Mike McNally) (02/08/89)

Forgive me for what may be an ignorant question, but is there a version
of the 386 that doesn't have problems with TLB misses while floating
point stuff is going on?  We have ``double sigma'' parts, and they
exhibit the problem.  For a while, I thought that the double sigmas
fixed the bug; I guess I was wrong.

-- 
Mike McNally                                    Lynx Real-Time Systems
uucp: {voder,athsys}!lynx!m5                    phone: 408 370 2233

            Where equal mind and contest equal, go.

smcroft@sactoh0.UUCP (Steve M. Croft) (02/09/89)

In article <5219@lynx.UUCP>, m5@lynx.uucp (Mike McNally) writes:
> Forgive me for what may be an ignorant question, but is there a version
> of the 386 that doesn't have problems with TLB misses while floating
> point stuff is going on?

I heard of this problem but thought that it was with the 386/287
combo.  Could this also be happening with 386/387 equipment?



-- 
###############################################################
#                 steve "whadda guy" croft                    #  
# ...!pacbell!sactoh0!smcroft  ||  ...csusac!athena!crofts    #
###############################################################

mslater@cup.portal.com (Michael Z Slater) (02/09/89)

>Forgive me for what may be an ignorant question, but is there a version
>of the 386 that doesn't have problems with TLB misses while floating
>point stuff is going on?  We have ``double sigma'' parts, and they
>exhibit the problem.  For a while, I thought that the double sigmas
>fixed the bug; I guess I was wrong.

The double-sigma parts have a 32-bit multiply that works; they have
all 21 of the errata, however, including the paging/fpu problem.  The
"D-step" parts supposedly fix all known problems; they are marked
80386DX.  Curiously, the DX is what identifies the chip as a D-step part,
but the D is not the step number.  It is supposedly just a coincidence
that the DX nomenclature was added at the same time that they switched to
the D step.  SX suffix is for Single-wide (16-bit) data bus, DX is for
Double wide (32-bit) I'm told. Perhaps there will be a 486QX ?? (64-bit bus)

Michael Slater, Microprocessor Report     mslater@cup.portal.com