On Sun, 2011-01-02 at 16:04 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 08:58:03 -0500, Gaetan Nadon wrote: > > > Using x86*64* rather than x86_64 is misleading to the user as it > > implies there are a large number of possibilities. > > > What user are you talking about?
The value returned by `uname -m` for Intel/AMD processors supporting the 64 bit ISA is x86_64. There are no other values that would be matched by "*", either in the middle or at the end of x86*64*. This is unlike i*86 where you could have i386, i486, i586 and i686. That's my assertion from my understanding of config.guess I used as a reference. > > Cheers, > Julien
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
