From: loki AT dragoncat DOT net (Jeremy Blackman) Subject: Re: Uname -m and arch 30 May 1997 09:30:10 -0700 Approved: cygnus DOT gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com Distribution: cygnus Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Original-To: gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com In-Reply-To: <199705292242.PAA00741@cirdan.cygnus.com> Original-Sender: owner-gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com On Thu, 29 May 1997, Geoffrey Noer wrote: > > Under Linux, I would get i586. Is this as it should be? If so, what is > > the meaning of 6395286? > Either you have an Intel i6395286 chip in your machine or you're running > into a cygwin.dll bug. I have a hunch as to which is more likely. :-) Indeed. Unless Intel's CPU design group has been -really- busy... :) I noticed this problem under b17 as well, and reported it, but I suspect it got lost in all the rush. My solution for the moment was to write my own 'arch' (for autoconf) and ignore the uname problem since it didn't -break- anything. > What's happening is that uname() isn't setting the processor level > correctly. uname() gets some of its info using the SYSTEM_INFO struct. > This structure has various members many of which aren't supported under > both Windows 95 and NT. :-( I've fixed the development sources so uname > will behave better under Windows 95 in future releases. Perhaps a way to set this if you have a specific need, and default to i486 or something otherwise? Unless you have a way to determine the chipset accurately. :) Only reason I suggest a way to set it is if you have something which depends on 386, 486, or 586 compiler optimizations... - For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to "gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help".