Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
From:	"Fish" <fish AT infidels DOT org>
To:	<cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
Subject:	BUG: Uname -m and arch
Date:	Fri, 12 Oct 2001 19:46:37 -0700
Message-ID:	<000201c15391$4751efc0$0200a8c0@proteva>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
Importance:	Normal
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300

Hello.

I happen to trip over a bug with uname.

On my system, "uname -m" returns "i686". This is incorrect. I only have a 200MHz
Pentium MMX, and a "i686" is equivalent to a Pentium Pro class CPU. It should be
returning "i586".

I took a peek at source module uname.cc and the code there is incorrect. It is
not taking the Win9X/ME vs. NT/2K/XP issue into account.

The following post dated from 1997 explains the problem:

  http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/1997-05/msg00655.html

The following post from the same 1997 thread contains the CORRECT code:

  http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/1997-05/msg00696.html

Thanks.

--
"Fish" (David B. Trout)
   fish AT infidels DOT org


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -