Subject: Re: new sysctl: hw.cpu_isa
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Darren Reed <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 11/14/2000 08:30:00
In some email I received from Jason R Thorpe, sie wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 03:44:52AM +1100, Darren Reed wrote:
> > > Well, first of all, sun4u doesn't belong under "sparc" :-)
> > In 32bit mode, it would. There's also sun4d (unsupported by NetBSD).
> No, it wouldn't. It's not supported by the "sparc" port, but rather
> by the "sparc64" port, even in 32-bit mode, and thus the "sparc64" port
> would be responsible for reporting the ISA.
What is this sysctl reporting ? The kernel architecture or the system's ?
A 32bit kernel on a 64bit system is sun4u but is NOT sparcv9.
In either case, I'm starting to think that reporting "sun4*" is incorrect,
also, we have the potential to be compatible with isalist/optisa on Solaris
which used sparc* rather than sun4* to report and represent ISA.