Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1999 13:57:13 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Richard Dawe <richdawe AT bigfoot DOT com>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: CPU ID program, second version
In-Reply-To: <37A9D003.29F98D34@tudor21.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990808135630.23423H-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, Richard Dawe wrote:

> Morten Welinder wrote:
> > Also, your switch statement is incomplete -- add a default case and
> > call it "ix86" or something like that.
> 
> Would it not be better to have 'i386' instead, since this is the earliest
> x86 processor that DJGPP works with?

In the part of the code that has that switch we already know that the
CPU is at least i486.  Therefore, i486 is a more accurate result, I
think.