From: Alain Magloire Message-Id: <199909122215.SAA27455@mccoy2.ECE.McGill.CA> Subject: Re: CPU identification (Was: Re: uname -m ?) To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 18:15:24 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <199909122033.PAA26720@darwin.sfbr.org> from "Jeff Williams" at Sep 12, 99 03:33:33 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 Bonjour > -: > 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. > -: > -: Switches for `uname' program is something that should be suggested to > -: Jim Meyering, the maintainer of Sh-utils. Unlike Sun, we don't have > -: our own version of `uname'. I don't know if GNU/Linux is using sh-utils or some extended fork version but when login : $ uname -rs Linux 2.0.36 $ uname --help Usage: uname [OPTION]... Print certain system information. With no OPTION, same as -s. -a, --all print all information -m, --machine print the machine (hardware) type -n, --nodename print the machine's network node hostname -r, --release print the operating system release -s, --sysname print the operating system name -p, --processor print the host processor type -v print the operating system version --help display this help and exit --version output version information and exit Report bugs to sh-utils-bugs AT gnu DOT ai DOT mit DOT edu And the same on Solaris : # uname -rs SunOS 5.6 # uname - usage: uname [-snrvmapiX] uname [-S system_name] They all seem to have a '-p' that djgpp is missing. > -: > -: As for a new member of `struct utsname', I'm not particularly against > -: it, although we should at least go out and see if some other platform > -: adds that, and if so, make the additional member have the same name. > -: Also, if detecting x87 could be dangerous (i.e. risk crashing the > -: program), I would vote against it. > > We have the lib function _detect_80387() in djgpp; is there a danger of > this crashing inside a script? Even if it can, is this a bad thing if it > is just an optional switch? Opinions may vary, but there is a lot of automated configuration tools That rely on uname (autoconf(config.guess)) and to have a package crash in the configuration stage, can be really annoying 8-). -- au revoir, alain ---- Aussi haut que l'on soit assis, on est toujours assis que sur son cul !!!