Oliver Bandel wrote: > On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 06:01:24PM +0100, Richard Jones wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 10:42:40AM -0500, Romain Beauxis wrote: > > > Le jeudi 8 juillet 2010 06:44:34, Richard Jones a écrit : > > > > Stdlib could bind the uname(2) syscall, but it's legendary in its > > > > complexity. Seems more likely to cause problems than just calling > > > > out to the external program. > > > > > > I fail to see the complexity.. Where is it ? > > > > Actually *I* misunderstood the link I posted > > (http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/online/pages/man2/uname.2.html#NO > > TES) thinking it meant that the string fields in the structure could > > have variable width. Reading it again, they don't. > > > > Nevertheless I still think this is not a useful addition to stdlib, > > but for different reasons: > > > > (1) You'd have to emulate it on non-Unix platforms, but it's unclear > > what you'd emulate it with. Windows has a completely different and > > much richer concept of OS version. This sort of version probing > > complexity doesn't belong in the core library, but in an external "OS > > version" library where detection rules can be frequently updated. > [...] > > > $ uname -a > > If it's not Unix, what will uname(2) or uname(1) give you? > > What will be reported on Windows with MinGW
C:\Users\DRA>uname -a windows32 Tenor 2.6.1 7600 i686-pc Intel unknown MinGW (using GnuWin32 which is a MinGW build of the Unix tools) > or Cygwin? d...@tenor ~ $ uname -a CYGWIN_NT-6.1-WOW64 Tenor 1.7.5(0.225/5/3) 2010-04-12 19:07 i686 Cygwin But of course in both instances that requires uname.exe to be installed which it won't be on most normal end-user systems. David
_______________________________________________ Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management: http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
