OK, so I read that, too. I'm still fuzzy on what is being asked for. Extrapolating based on my 20 years of experience as a CPU logic designer, and graduate work in error correcting codes, I'm guessing that what the author seems to want is to have uncorrectable memory read errors passed to user space as an exception that the application can handle as it sees fit. (I wouldn't call that FEC, but, /shrug ...)
The OS gets the exception. There are always (usually priviledged) instructions to read and set the memory check bits. It would be darn hard to write memory diagnostics without them, or sometimes even to boot a machine that powers up with random bits in the memory.
If I understand what the author wants, (and I have my doubts that the author understands what they want), then they are asking for an OS feature, not a CPU feature, and simply want the exception to bubble up to user space.
The OS gets the exception. There are always (usually priviledged) instructions to read and set the memory check bits. It would be darn hard to write memory diagnostics without them, or sometimes even to boot a machine that powers up with random bits in the memory.
If I understand what the author wants, (and I have my doubts that the author understands what they want), then they are asking for an OS feature, not a CPU feature, and simply want the exception to bubble up to user space.