On Nov 8, 2013, at 01:39, Mojca Miklavec 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`
>
> m: print the machine hardware name
> p: print the machine processor architecture name
>
>
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 7:31 PM, Maxwell, Adam R wrote:
> On Nov 8, 2013, at 01:39, Mojca Miklavec 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`
>>
>> m: print the machine hardware
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Mojca Miklavec
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 re
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 2013-11-06 00:26, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>>
>>The role of config.guess should be figuring out what architecture we
>>are compiling *for* (that could easily be i386 or ppc even on x86_64).
>
> This has come up before on the config
