Re: MACHINE_ARCH on NetBSD/evbearmv6hf-el current

[Matt Thomas <matt%3am-software.com@localhost>]

On Oct 26, 2013, at 10:54 AM, Izumi Tsutsui <tsutsui%ceres.dti.ne.jp@localhost> 
wrote:

>>> By static MACHINE_ARCH, or dynamic sysctl(3)?
>>> If dynamic sysctl(3) is prefered, which node?
>> 
>> hw.machine_arch
>> 
>> which has been defined for a long long time.
> 
> Yes, defined before sf vs hf issue arised, and
> you have changed the definition (i.e. make it dynamic)
> without public discussion.  That's the problem.

It was already dynamic (it changes for compat_netbsd32).