>>> Well, while you're at it: it would be nice it uname(1) "-p" would
>>> return the processor type as on Solaris et al. Of course this
>>> involves glibc and sh-utils, not the kernel, but when
>>> implementing this feature you could just keep an eye on what is
>>> needed for this to work
>> 'uname -m' returns the processor type. On my machine that gives
>> you 'i686'.
> Wrong: uname -m returns the machine type, uname -p returns the
> actual cpu type. Just check GNU uname --help...
Here's what this box reports...
Q> # uname -m
Q> i686
Q> # uname -p
Q> unknown
Q> # uname -r
Q> 2.2.10
Q> # uname -s
Q> Linux
Q> # uname -v
Q> #2 SMP Mon Jun 14 16:51:11 BST 1999
Anything wrong with that?
>> Do you mean uname -p would return 'Intel'? 'AMD' and so on?
> No. We have it wrong: uname -m should always return the generic
> architecture type (eg. i386, or alpha) while uname -p should
> return the actual processor (eg. i386, i486, ev6 or K6-II).
At least on this system, `uname -p` doesn't return anything useful...
Best wishes from Riley.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| There is something frustrating about the quality and speed of Linux |
| development, ie., the quality is too high and the speed is too high, |
| in other words, I can implement this XXXX feature, but I bet someone |
| else has already done so and is just about to release their patch. |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
* ftp://ftp.MemAlpha.cx/pub/rhw/Linux
* http://www.MemAlpha.cx/kernel.versions.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/