PATCH: 3.1.6-dev-20+10242: runtime determination of CPUTYPE

PATCH: 3.1.6-dev-20+10242: runtime determination of CPUTYPE

[Clint Adams]

This goes on top of 10242.  It reverts MACHTYPE to its original
behavior (of which I still don't see the point), and adds CPUTYPE
as the runtime equivalent of uname -m.  Probably a poor name choice,
considering the inconsistencies of uname.

Index: Doc/Zsh/params.yo
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/zsh/zsh/Doc/Zsh/params.yo,v
retrieving revision 1.1.1.19
diff -u -r1.1.1.19 params.yo
--- Doc/Zsh/params.yo	1999/12/20 11:24:40	1.1.1.19
+++ Doc/Zsh/params.yo	2000/03/28 22:20:58
@@ -293,6 +293,11 @@
 Also, this parameter is set in the environment of every command
 executed to the full pathname of the command.
 )
+vindex(CPUTYPE)
+item(tt(CPUTYPE))(
+The machine type (microprocessor class or machine model),
+as determined at run time.
+)
 vindex(EGID)
 item(tt(EGID) <S>)(
 The effective group ID of the shell process.  If you have sufficient
Index: Src/params.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/zsh/zsh/Src/params.c,v
retrieving revision 1.1.1.49
diff -u -r1.1.1.49 params.c
--- Src/params.c	2000/03/25 18:05:03	1.1.1.49
+++ Src/params.c	2000/03/28 22:20:58
@@ -543,16 +543,17 @@
     /* Add the standard non-special parameters */
     set_pwd_env();
 #ifdef HAVE_UNAME
-    if(uname(&unamebuf)) setsparam("MACHTYPE", ztrdup(MACHTYPE));
+    if(uname(&unamebuf)) setsparam("CPUTYPE", ztrdup("unknown"));
     else
     {
        machinebuf = ztrdup(unamebuf.machine);
-       setsparam("MACHTYPE", machinebuf);
+       setsparam("CPUTYPE", machinebuf);
     }
 	
 #else
-    setsparam("MACHTYPE", ztrdup(MACHTYPE));
+    setsparam("CPUTYPE", ztrdup("unknown"));
 #endif
+    setsparam("MACHTYPE", ztrdup(MACHTYPE));
     setsparam("OSTYPE", ztrdup(OSTYPE));
     setsparam("TTY", ztrdup(ttystrname));
     setsparam("VENDOR", ztrdup(VENDOR));

RE: PATCH: 3.1.6-dev-20+10242: runtime determination of CPUTYPE

[Andrej Borsenkow]

>
> This goes on top of 10242.  It reverts MACHTYPE to its original
> behavior (of which I still don't see the point), and adds CPUTYPE
> as the runtime equivalent of uname -m.  Probably a poor name choice,
> considering the inconsistencies of uname.
>


What I do not really understand, why do you need yet another parameter?
Is not uname enough? If OS has uname syscall, it has uname command as
well (am I mistaken here?)

-andrej