On Thu 2008-05-29 11:35:08, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
quoted text
> 
> On Thursday 2008-05-29 02:13, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> 
> > 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.

They should, but it is too late for that now.

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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/