" `uname -m' currently reports `i686-AT386', compared to `i686' on
GNU/Linux. Is there a reason to be different? "
I have the same question too! :)
It's easy to make 'uname' show just the machine name and not the
ugly '-AT386' part. This is how i did it:
diff -u hurd/proc/host.c.original hurd/proc/host.c.new
--- hurd/proc/host.c.original 2002-05-08 12:24:49.000000000 +0300
+++ hurd/proc/host.c.new 2007-02-15 22:39:14.000000000 +0200
@@ -359,9 +359,8 @@
err = host_info (mach_host_self (), HOST_BASIC_INFO,
(host_info_t) &info, &n);
assert (! err);
- snprintf (uname_info.machine, sizeof uname_info.machine, "%s-%s",
- mach_cpu_types[info.cpu_type],
- mach_cpu_subtypes[info.cpu_type][info.cpu_subtype]);
+ snprintf (uname_info.machine, sizeof uname_info.machine, "%s",
+ mach_cpu_types[info.cpu_type]);
/* Notice Mach's and our own version and initialize server version
variables. */
Question:
Why is there a need for a cpu subtype (AT386)?
Bug report:
I have Hurd running on a Pentium 4 (2.8GHz). For some reason
'uname -m' shows the wrong hardware
# uname -m
i386
It should show 'i686'. The reason probably lies in
gnumach/i386/i386/locore.S but i haven't tried to hack that yet.
Thanks,
Constantine
_______________________________________________
Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
