On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Mojca Miklavec
<mojca.miklavec.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I can submit a patch, but I would first like to ask why the script uses
> UNAME_PROCESSOR=`uname -p`
> rather than
> UNAME_PROCESSOR=`uname -m`
I'm sorry, I didn't express myself properly. I actually wanted to ask
why the final results is calculated using UNAME_PROCESSOR (uname -p)
rather than UNAME_MACHINE (uname -m) because UNAME_MACHINE seems
better for this particular purpose to me (at least it reports x86_64
as x86_64 rather than as i386).
Thank you,
Mojca
_______________________________________________
config-patches mailing list
config-patches@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/config-patches
