Re: AMD k6 cosmetic problems
Boris Seifert (boris@goliath.de)
Fri, 10 Oct 1997 16:20:32 +0200
On Oct 9, 1:08, Dean Gaudet wrote:
> Subject: Re: AMD k6 cosmetic problems
>
> On Thu, 9 Oct 1997, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 9 Oct 1997, Boris Seifert wrote:
> >
> > > Hello again,
> > >
> > > Is there a patch for 2.0.x kernels that changes the 'i586'
> > > in `uname -a` to 'amdk6' or similar? If not, in which part of
> > > the 2.0.x kernel sources would i have to look to make the
> > > right changes ?
> > This would be rather wrong! The Architecture name of the processor
> > returned by the uname syscall should reflect the processors
capabilities
> > and not it's implementation details. Therefore i586 is allready
quite
> > right for the AMD K6. Instead of the change proposed by You, we
should
> > propably think about returning i586MMX, where apriopriate, just to
give
> > the user a hint about the additional *architectural* capabilities.
Tought
> > I doubt even in this case, that there could be any use of it.
>
> This would be wrong too. Try it, and watch all the gnu autoconf
based
> scripts fail. Curse. Like Peter said, it's a mistake to change it
at
> all.
You could always override the autoconf assumption with
./configure build=i586 (or whatever arch)
Boris