23 Mar
2004
23 Mar
'04
2:33 p.m.
Paul Koning wrote:
Meanwhile, something like AXE is your best bet to
catch unexpected
instruction interactions. It was used because it provides FAR better
coverage than conventional CPU diagnostics. Not alone, of course --
you still want to pass regular diagnostics, and run all the
applications you can think of. And the microcode still has to be
carefully designed and coded. But AXE adds yet another level of
assurance to the implementation.
Forget the axe!
Build simpler computers that work!
paul
I don't still don't trust it! CPU diagnostics needs to be designed into
the CPU in the design not added later. But CPU's nowdays are designed
for speed not long life. Also what happens when AXE or any other test
finds a FAULT. Crash the system or what?
-------------------------------------------------
+ Windows error 66666 System tests OK! +
+ Windows error 99999 System does not test OK! +
-------------------------------------------------
Ben.