Talk:General protection fault

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk[edit]

What cause each fault to occur

Who is he?[edit]

Who is General Protection Fault and what does he want? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frap (talkcontribs) 00:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The general protection fault and page fault articles have a lot of confusion and just plain wrong information relating to whether a GPF or page fault is used to report certain types of illegal memory accesses. I've started trying to clean this up, but there may be other inconsistencies that I missed. Skywing 19:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Technical causes for faults' too technical[edit]

I think this is a really good article - I found it very easy to understand. The exception to this is the 'Technical causes for faults' section. All of a sudden the article jumps into acronym soup, none of which are explained or linked to. It doesn't help that proper sentences aren't used either.

I came here to learn about GPFs, and as such don't have an understanding of these acronyms. I have to look them up so I will provide links as I go, but I would love to see someone else rework this section to provide an easier read - either by using full sentences, or providing more of an intro paragraph. I will try to do this as I go, but am reluctant to change content as I don't have good knowledge in this area. Gechurch (talk) 11:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comics[edit]

there is also an comic strip called "General Protection Fault" on gpf-comics --87.4.252.122 (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC) (Marcopete87)[reply]

oops, i didn't noticed the pre exsisting page, sorry... --82.54.249.135 (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC) (Marcopete87)[reply]

related / unrelated?[edit]

It is said "in the Intel x86 and AMD x86-64 architectures, and other unrelated architectures". It is correct to say "related", isn't it?Alifakoor (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]