On Thursday 2008-05-29 02:13, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

quoted text
> Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
>> > uname reports i686 on these chips.  The rest is ridiculous.
>> 
>> Intel started it first with picking up a ridiculous number for the family
>> ID for the P4 line.  There is no technical justification for not keeping
>> these numbers consecutive.  Or keeping it at 6 actually if the P4 is meant
>> to be seen by software as the Pentium Pro and the rest of the P6 gang.
>
> Yes, this is what we eventually ended up doing as causing fewest compatibility
> problems.  For the message in question, it's better to be consistent with
> uname.

Then again, should not all of the i?86 names be collapsed,
much like there is only "sparc" and "sparc64" for
the actual sparcv7, sparcv8, sparcv9, sparcv9a pseudo-arches
used in, for example rpm, etc.
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/