On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 01:00:43PM -0700, Greywolf wrote:
> MB: I would expect 32/64 or 64/64 to return the same thing as 64/64.
> MB: But in the 32/32 case, sparc vs sparc64 is the same level of difference than
> MB: sparcv7 vs sparcv8 from the userland software point of view. So I would
> MB: expect uname to return the same value if I'm running on a IPC, or an
> MB: ultra5 with a 32bit kernel.
> 
> I do not expect platform arch and kernel arch to necessarily correspond.
> 
> [In fact, I would *really* like it if one of -m or -p would tell me what
> kind of machine I am *really* on [ i686, k7, whatever ] while the other
> would tell me the generic category, i.e. hardware vs. compatibility.]

It would IMHO make more sense. On solaris it's:
funk:/users/cao/bouyer>uname -p
sparc
funk:/users/cao/bouyer>uname -m
sun4u
But it should be all or none.

> 
> And I think you mean 'sparcv8' vs. 'sparcv9' above; v7 and v8 are both
> 32-bit (v8 has the integer mul/div).

No, I really meant v7 vs v8. 'uname -m' always return sparc , on a
IPC or on a SS20. I don't see any reason to return something different
on a Ultra running a 32bit kernel.

Now, maybe we want to have more informations in the output of uname -m,
but then it should probably be something like sun4, sun4c, sun4m, sun4u,
or sparc{v7,v8,v9}. 

-- 
Manuel Bouyer <bouyer@antioche.eu.org>
     NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--