From:	Alain Magloire <alainm AT rcsm DOT ece DOT mcgill DOT ca>
Message-Id:	<199908060116.VAA02276@mccoy2.ECE.McGill.CA>
Subject:	Re: CPU identification (Was: Re: uname -m ?)
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Thu, 5 Aug 1999 21:16:46 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.990805191025.21067B-100000@is> from "Eli Zaretskii" at Aug 5, 99 07:13:18 pm
X-Mailer:	ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

Bonjour 

> 
> On Thu, 5 Aug 1999, Jeff Williams wrote:
> 
> > Would there be any point in having `uname' also test for and
> > report the presence of a functional FPU for those processors
> > where it was actually an option (e.g., with 386s, and with
> > some crippled 486 versions, IIRC).
> 
> I don't think so.  `uname' is a compatibility function, so it should 
> comply to whatever the Unix systems return.  And they put only the CPU 
> identification into the `machine' member.  AFAIK, no x86-based system
> reports anything about x87.  You can look at one of the GNU-standard 
> config.guess and config.sub scripts to try to find out if there's any 
> that do.

I actually think it is a good idea to add this extension via
a new switch for example '-x' or -f etc .. and a new member name
to utsname.

config.sub, config.guess are merely aids to help a maintainer
to figure out the type of the system.  For example Sun extended
this with '-p' 

# uname -m
sun4u
# uname -p
sparc

Of course, IMHO.


-- 
au revoir, alain
----
Aussi haut que l'on soit assis, on est toujours assis que sur son cul !!!

- Raw text -