Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 4 Jul 1999 22:44:38 +0100 (GMT) | From | Riley Williams <> | Subject | Re: Patch for 2.2.10 (Quelle surprise!) |
| |
Hi Dominik.
>>> 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/
| |