Subject: re: new sysctl: hw.cpu_isa
To: Darren Reed <>
From: matthew green <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 11/14/2000 11:09:34
   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.

using sun4* would be as far wrong as possible.  the dumped solaris bits are
pretty much the right names to use:

	32bit: sparc, sparcv7 (default?), sparcv8, sparcv8plus, sparcv8plusa, sparcv8a
	64bit: sparcv9, sparcv9a, sparcv9plusa (default?)

with the v8a/v8aplus only being available on ultrasparc-class machines.  (hmm,
from the solaris names, the call the "a" bit "+vis").

the above also mostly agree with the gcc -m names.