3 ms·
I’d prefer a bug that crashes a program than one that quietly inserts wrong data and keeps going.
by Waterluvian 3y ago
I’d prefer a bug that crashes a program than one that quietly inserts wrong data and keeps going.
- bee_rider 3y agoIt probably depends on your workload, which is a bigger deal. The fdiv bug was pretty bad, but at least fixable in software (at some cost). Anyway, recall is the right decision in either case (unless there’s a good enough workaround).
- __alexs 3y agoIf every CPU with an errata that needed software workarounds was recalled there would be no CPUs to use.
- bee_rider 3y agoThat’s why I said “unless there are good enough workarounds.” You buy a part with some performance/power consumption expectations. It sounds like a workaround here could be to disable C6 sleep, so I guess we’ll see how much that violates those expectations. I guess they didn’t add the feature for no reason, though.
- kllrnohj 3y agoThe other workaround is to reboot at least once every 3 years, which surely most users are doing anyway to pick up on security patches & similar. Exceptions definitely exist, but the workarounds are both pretty straightforward and you can pick whichever is less impactful.
- imtringued 3y agoIt is a non-issue. If you need 3 years of permanent uptime, then what exactly do you need a deep sleep state for that is basically the same as turning the CPU off?
- gchamonlive 3y agoMe too, that is why I said the problems are comparable, not the same.