atom feed13 messages in org.freebsd.freebsd-amd64Re: uname -m/-p for compat32 binaries
FromSent OnAttachments
Kostik BelousovJul 19, 2010 2:30 pm 
Scott LongJul 19, 2010 2:52 pm 
Kostik BelousovJul 19, 2010 2:57 pm 
Scott LongJul 19, 2010 3:16 pm 
Dag-Erling SmørgravJul 20, 2010 3:51 am 
Kostik BelousovJul 20, 2010 4:48 am 
John BaldwinJul 20, 2010 6:07 am 
Garrett CooperJul 20, 2010 10:51 am 
John BaldwinJul 20, 2010 11:14 am 
Nathan WhitehornJul 20, 2010 1:48 pm 
Kostik BelousovJul 21, 2010 5:00 am 
Nathan WhitehornJul 21, 2010 2:29 pm 
M. Warner LoshJul 23, 2010 11:25 am 
Subject:Re: uname -m/-p for compat32 binaries
From:Scott Long (sco@samsco.org)
Date:Jul 19, 2010 3:16:53 pm
List:org.freebsd.freebsd-amd64

Just checked, and I was a little off. We don't actually do this in the kernel,
we override it in the environment UNAME_ variables. All of our software that
wants to look at the machine arch uses uname to do it, so we go that route.
That way, we're not really lying to anything that wants to get the definitive
answer from the hw.machine architecture. I can't defend it any further than
that, maybe Peter or Paul or John can comment on it. I personally don't see one
way as being better than the other, as they both have potential problems. As
you noted in your previous email, it's an easy change that could have been done
long ago; maybe the fact that it hasn't points to a good reason not to.

Scott

On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:57 PM, Kostik Belousov wrote:

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 03:52:31PM -0600, Scott Long wrote:

We do something similar at yahoo, and it's code that we're working on packaging up to put back into FreeBSD. I don't know how your code differs from ours, and I obviously cannot stop you from committing yours, but you're welcome to look at our code.

There is obviously no rush to commit this snippet, and I obviously would abstain if this would make larger integration harder.

Where to look ? Or should I just sit and wait ?