On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 08:32:17PM -0500, SDA wrote:
> Show who you're quoting with an attribution line, please!
With proper attribution, we might know who you are addressing with this
statement...
Cheers,
Tom
--
What's the matter with the world? Why, there ain't but one thing wrong
with ever
On 2018-01-08, SDA wrote:
> Show who you're quoting with an attribution line, please!
>
Tit for tat, unintended irony, blatant hypocrisy, or something else (I'm
leaning toward the foremost, but you never know)?
Apropos, as revealed in another thread, I'm dying to learn why SM never
includes a
Show who you're quoting with an attribution line, please!
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 12:42 PM, Marc Auslander wrote:
> Nicholas Geovanis writes:
>
>>On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:55 AM, wrote:
>>> (mainframes of that time had at least VM, possibly
>>> speculative prefetch).
>>
>>Is it correct to call branch prediction the same as speculative execution?
>>If so
Nicholas Geovanis writes:
>On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:55 AM, wrote:
>> (mainframes of that time had at least VM, possibly
>> speculative prefetch).
>
>Is it correct to call branch prediction the same as speculative execution?
>If so, then "yes" they had it, but I don't honestly know if that's cor
> Is it correct to call branch prediction the same as speculative execution?
Not really: they're closely related yet different.
Stefan
>> With TLB cache and all that? Pretty impressive :)
> I am not sure about the 68010 and its separate MMU. But beginning with 68020
> there surely was memory space separation per process and cache memory in the
> CPU.
The 68020 didn't have an MMU on chip (it required a separate chip
(MC68851) if y
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Jan 05, 2018 at 10:33:45AM -0600, Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:55 AM, wrote:
> > (mainframes of that time had at least VM, possibly
> > speculative prefetch).
>
> Is it correct to call branch prediction the same as spe
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:55 AM, wrote:
> (mainframes of that time had at least VM, possibly
> speculative prefetch).
Is it correct to call branch prediction the same as speculative execution?
If so, then "yes" they had it, but I don't honestly know if that's correct.
Pipeline rewinding was neces
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Jan 05, 2018 at 04:39:41PM +0100, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
(thanks for this walk down the memory (pun? me?) lane.
[...]
> > > Man against hardware. Who will finally win ?
>
> > Hardware.
>
> The more we shou
Hi,
to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > > Does any of the processors in the M68K family support VM?
I wrote:
> > http://gunkies.org/wiki/MC68010
> With TLB cache and all that? Pretty impressive :)
I am not sure about the 68010 and its separate MMU. But beginning with 68020
there surely was memory spa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Jan 05, 2018 at 02:41:57PM +0100, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > Does any of the processors in the M68K family support VM?
>
> They did since the early 1980s when i wondered what the advantage of an
> 68010 would
Hi,
to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> Does any of the processors in the M68K family support VM?
They did since the early 1980s when i wondered what the advantage of an
68010 would be over an 68000 (with HP BASIC: none).
http://gunkies.org/wiki/MC68010
After all, early Sun, HP and Apollo Unix workstati
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Jan 05, 2018 at 07:39:23AM -0500, Jack Dangler wrote:
[...]
> Did this also affect Motorola chipsets? I know they haven't been
> popular in a while, but I believe they are still in use (i.e. 68000)
You can answer this question yourself:
-
On 01/04/2018 12:55 PM, The Wanderer wrote:
On 2018-01-04 at 12:30, Michael Fothergill wrote:
On 4 January 2018 at 17:22, Curt wrote:
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/01/meltdown-and-spectre-every-modern-
processor-has-unfixable-security-fladdws/U
TL;DR
Windows, Linux, and macOS h
I was hoping to be retired before this happened..
All of AWS EC2 is rebooting today by 4pm UTC
AppArmor everywhere: Can't trust the hardware to do it right. Clowns! Buffo!
On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 12:19 PM, Michael Fothergill
wrote:
>
>
> On 4 January 2018 at 17:55, The Wanderer wrote:
>>
>> O
On 4 January 2018 at 17:55, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2018-01-04 at 12:30, Michael Fothergill wrote:
>
> > On 4 January 2018 at 17:22, Curt wrote:
> >
> >> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/01/meltdown-and-
> spectre-every-modern-
> >> processor-has-unfixable-security-fladdws/U
> >>
> >>
> >>
On 2018-01-04 at 13:17, Tixy wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-01-04 at 12:55 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> Meltdown so far is not known to affect anything other than Intel.
>
> And ARM's Cortex-A75 [1] which according to The Register [2]
> "Qualcomm's upcoming Snapdragon 845 is an example part that uses
On Thu, 2018-01-04 at 12:55 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> Meltdown so far is not known to affect anything other than Intel.
And ARM's Cortex-A75 [1] which according to The Register [2] "Qualcomm's
upcoming Snapdragon 845 is an example part that uses the A75"
[1] https://developer.arm.com/support/s
On 2018-01-04 at 13:06, francis picabia wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 1:22 PM, Curt wrote:
>
>> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/01/meltdown-and-spectre-every-modern-
>> processor-has-unfixable-security-fladdws/U
>>
>>
>> TL;DR
>>
>> Windows, Linux, and macOS have all received security pa
On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 1:22 PM, Curt wrote:
> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/01/meltdown-and-spectre-every-modern-
> processor-has-unfixable-security-fladdws/U
>
>
> TL;DR
>
> Windows, Linux, and macOS have all received security patches that
> significantly alter how the operating systems
On 2018-01-04 at 12:30, Michael Fothergill wrote:
> On 4 January 2018 at 17:22, Curt wrote:
>
>> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/01/meltdown-and-spectre-every-modern-
>> processor-has-unfixable-security-fladdws/U
>>
>>
>> TL;DR
>>
>> Windows, Linux, and macOS have all received security pat
On 4 January 2018 at 17:22, Curt wrote:
> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/01/meltdown-and-spectre-every-modern-
> processor-has-unfixable-security-fladdws/U
>
>
> TL;DR
>
> Windows, Linux, and macOS have all received security patches that
> significantly alter how the operating systems han
On 2018-01-04 at 12:22, Curt wrote:
> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/01/meltdown-and-spectre-every-modern-processor-has-unfixable-security-fladdws/U
>
>
> TL;DR
>
> Windows, Linux, and macOS have all received security patches that
> significantly alter how the operating systems handle vi
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/01/meltdown-and-spectre-every-modern-processor-has-unfixable-security-fladdws/U
TL;DR
Windows, Linux, and macOS have all received security patches that
significantly alter how the operating systems handle virtual memory in
order to protect against a hither
25 matches
Mail list logo
