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
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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/