> >
> >Any good suggestions here???
> >UTS_MACHINE is set in top-level Makefile and if we specify
> >make ARCH=x86
> >we do not know if i386 or x86_&4 is correct until the configuration
> >has been read.
> >
> >Should we report a "make ARCH=x86" as uname -m == x86??
> >
>
> That would break 5 year
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Should we report a "make ARCH=x86" as uname -m == x86??
That would break 5 years of a stable ABI. I don't think that is even
remotely feasible.
Make that 5 years for x86-64, 16 years for i386...
-hpa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscr
Sam Ravnborg wrote:
On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 07:20:15AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Andreas Herrmann wrote:
The new ARCH=x86 kernel build causes weired machine strings on 32-bit.
For a cross-compiled kernel I have
$ uname -m
x66_64
For a kernel natively built on a 32 bit mac
On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 07:20:15AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Andreas Herrmann wrote:
> >The new ARCH=x86 kernel build causes weired machine strings on 32-bit.
> >For a cross-compiled kernel I have
> >
> > $ uname -m
> > x66_64
> >
> >For a kernel natively built on a 32 bit machine I
Andreas Herrmann wrote:
The new ARCH=x86 kernel build causes weired machine strings on 32-bit.
For a cross-compiled kernel I have
$ uname -m
x66_64
For a kernel natively built on a 32 bit machine I have
$ uname -m
x66
Looking at the sources, I think that utsname->machin
The new ARCH=x86 kernel build causes weired machine strings on 32-bit.
For a cross-compiled kernel I have
$ uname -m
x66_64
For a kernel natively built on a 32 bit machine I have
$ uname -m
x66
Looking at the sources, I think that utsname->machine was initial
6 matches
Mail list logo
