Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 19:13:18 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Jeff Williams <jeffw AT darwin DOT sfbr DOT org>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: CPU identification (Was: Re: uname -m ?)
In-Reply-To: <199908051235.HAA13563@darwin.sfbr.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990805191025.21067B-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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
Precedence: bulk


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.