On Sat, 2005-02-05 at 20:05 -0600, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Arjan van de Ven <arjanv@xxxxxxxxxx> said: > > > coreutils-5.2.1-38 > > > ------------------ > > > * Fri Feb 04 2005 Tim Waugh <twaugh@xxxxxxxxxx> 5.2.1-38 > > > - Special case for ia32e in uname (bug #145266). > > > > this is wrong. Very wrong. > > uname should report x86_64 for both AMD and Intel 64 bit x64 machines. > > The architecture is x86_64. No ifs or buts. > > I'm not sure what the special case is, but the implementations are > somewhat different. Why shouldn't that be like: > > kosh:38:~$ uname -p > athlon > kosh:39:~$ uname -m > i686 > kosh:40:~$ uname -i > i386 this is already wrong. The "athlon" hack is *WRONG*. Athlon is a marketing name, it could just as well be a duron or a sempron. It was a mistake to put the athlon hack in uname (but hindsight is easy); it's imo very wrong to repeat that mistake. Note that what you show is incorrect already if you are on a newer machine, it should report athlon64. Or opteron. Or sempron. It's better to report more generic information than specific information which is incorrect, since that is actually far less useful than returning the somewhat more generic but correct information.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
