On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 7:31 PM, Maxwell, Adam R wrote:
> On Nov 8, 2013, at 01:39, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>
>> I can submit a patch, but I would first like to ask why the script uses
>> UNAME_PROCESSOR=`uname -p`
>> rather than
>> UNAME_PROCESSOR=`uname -m`
>>
>> m: print the machine hardware name
>> p: print the machine processor architecture name
>>
>> On my machine (both 10.6 and 10.7) "-p" returns "i386" and "-m"
>> returns "x86_64".
>
> On PowerPC hardware, uname -m is not appropriate:
>
> $ uname -m
> Power Macintosh
But then I was using (based on what many users reported when we
started providing the binaries long time ago):
ppc*|powerpc|power*|Power*) UNAME_PROCESSOR="powerpc" ;;
which covers this as well (without the 64-bit powerpc about which I
don't know anything at all).
And if in doubt, one could use "uname -m" for distingushing between
i386/x86_64 and if the value is neither i*86 nor x86_64, one could
double-check the value of "uname -p" for dealing with PowerPC.
Mojca
_______________________________________________
config-patches mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/config-patches
