From doherty@msc.edu  Wed Nov 30 12:16:42 1994
Received: from noc.msc.edu  for doherty@msc.edu
	by www.ccl.net (8.6.9/930601.1506) id MAA28627; Wed, 30 Nov 1994 12:01:53 -0500
Received: from uh.msc.edu by noc.msc.edu (5.65/MSC/v3.0.1(920324))
	id AA11144; Wed, 30 Nov 94 11:01:50 -0600
Received: from mac3.msc.edu by uh.msc.edu (5.65/MSC/v3.1r(920220))
	id AA26852; Wed, 30 Nov 94 11:01:48 -0600
Message-Id: <9411301701.AA26852@uh.msc.edu>
X-Sender: doherty@uh.msc.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 11:03:10 -0500
To: chakravo@cs.purdue.edu (Subhas Chakravorty), CHEMISTRY@ccl.net
From: doherty@msc.edu (David C. Doherty)
Subject: Re: CCL:The Pentium Bug


At 10:00 AM 11/30/94 -0500, Subhas Chakravorty wrote:
>[...]
>Being unaware of a bug in a a product is okay but
>to defend a bug seems a bit ridiculous, at least to me.

The above statement is true.  Let me point out, however, that
what these people have actually done is to put the bug into perspective.
I'd be hard pressed to imagine that they have attempted to "defend"
it.

approximations, parameterization, coding errors, precision errors,
compiler bugs...
You seem to evince absolute faith that we have conquered all of
these ;-).

Back to work on my bug-free Motorola processor...


---
David C. Doherty
Minnesota Supercomputer Center, Inc.
doherty@msc.edu