From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9462 invoked from network); 29 Mar 2000 05:59:55 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 29 Mar 2000 05:59:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 29085 invoked by alias); 29 Mar 2000 05:59:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 10306 Received: (qmail 29078 invoked from network); 29 Mar 2000 05:59:45 -0000 X-Envelope-Sender-Is: Andrej.Borsenkow@mow.siemens.ru (at relayer david.siemens.de) From: "Andrej Borsenkow" To: "Clint Adams" , Subject: RE: PATCH: 3.1.6-dev-20+10242: runtime determination of CPUTYPE Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 09:59:38 +0400 Message-ID: <000001bf9943$f781a2f0$21c9ca95@mow.siemens.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <20000328173114.A1480@dman.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 > > 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