Re: [osol-discuss] uname -a ... 32bit vs 64bit

[Alexander Eremin]

> Octave Orgeron writes:
> > Now putting all that info into uname would just
> complicate life for everyone and break all sorts of
> stuff. As such, uname is for very high-level info and
> isainfo is for detailed.
> 
> Exactly.  Putting detailed processor information into
> uname is not
> only unnecessary, but it breaks backward
> compatibility by forcing
> people who are depending on uname output (often
> inside of 'configure'
> scripts) to deal with new and unexpected responses
> from the system.
> 
> When we've done this in the past, it's been to add
> support for a new
> processor or system family, and not when we've just
> added support for
> yet another variant of an existing processor.
> 
> Breaking existing code can sometimes be the only
> answer, but it'd
> better be for a really good reason.  I'm not sure
> that merely
> disliking "i386" as shorthand for "all Intel and AMD
> x86 compatible
> CPUs" is enough of a reason to make ./configure fall
> over and die.
May be fears are exaggerated? I have Debian amd64 server with tons of various 
services at my office and uname -p shows me "unknown" (this is bug in Debian 
and Ubuntu) but I successfully make all programs that I needed.  It seems to me 
that anything terrible would not occur if the uname -p produced the x86_64 
output on machine with 64-bit cpu.
Nevertheless, looking through internet I found the same discussions for linux 
and some *bsd and looks like thus not only solaris question. Well, will waiting 
for next generation cpu.


Regards,
Alex
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] uname -a ... 32bit vs 64bit

[Dennis Clarke]

> Octave Orgeron writes:
>> Now putting all that info into uname would just complicate life for
>> everyone and break all sorts of stuff. As such, uname is for very
>> high-level info and isainfo is for detailed.
>
> Exactly.  Putting detailed processor information into uname is not
> only unnecessary, but it breaks backward compatibility by forcing
> people who are depending on uname output (often inside of 'configure'
> scripts) to deal with new and unexpected responses from the system.
>
> When we've done this in the past, it's been to add support for a new
> processor or system family, and not when we've just added support for
> yet another variant of an existing processor.
>
> Breaking existing code can sometimes be the only answer, but it'd
> better be for a really good reason.  I'm not sure that merely
> disliking "i386" as shorthand for "all Intel and AMD x86 compatible
> CPUs" is enough of a reason to make ./configure fall over and die.

The only thing that could safely be added to uname is perhaps the OS name
just like GNU uname :

$ uname --version
uname (GNU coreutils) 7.2
Copyright (C) 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later
.
This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it.
There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.

Written by David MacKenzie.
$ uname -a
SunOS mimas 5.8 Generic_117350-61 sun4u sparc SUNW,UltraAX-i2 Solaris

$ /sbin/uname -a
SunOS mimas 5.8 Generic_117350-61 sun4u sparc SUNW,UltraAX-i2

Even so, I don't see what the value is there.

Can anyone tell me what OpenSolaris reports for GNU uname ? Does it say
Solaris or OpenSolaris or something else?

Also, one parameter that I expect to work is the capital X :

$ uname -X
uname: invalid option -- X
Try `uname --help' for more information.

Which doe work with UNIX uname :

$ /sbin/uname -X
System = SunOS
Node = mimas
Release = 5.8
KernelID = Generic_117350-61
Machine = sun4u
BusType = 
Serial = 
Users = 
OEM# = 0
Origin# = 1
NumCPU = 1

Now that I think about it, messing with uname serves no purpose at all.

Dennis Clarke

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] uname -a ... 32bit vs 64bit

[James Carlson]

Octave Orgeron writes:
> Now putting all that info into uname would just complicate life for everyone 
> and break all sorts of stuff. As such, uname is for very high-level info and 
> isainfo is for detailed.

Exactly.  Putting detailed processor information into uname is not
only unnecessary, but it breaks backward compatibility by forcing
people who are depending on uname output (often inside of 'configure'
scripts) to deal with new and unexpected responses from the system.

When we've done this in the past, it's been to add support for a new
processor or system family, and not when we've just added support for
yet another variant of an existing processor.

Breaking existing code can sometimes be the only answer, but it'd
better be for a really good reason.  I'm not sure that merely
disliking "i386" as shorthand for "all Intel and AMD x86 compatible
CPUs" is enough of a reason to make ./configure fall over and die.

-- 
James Carlson, Solaris Networking  
Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive71.232W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.496N   Fax +1 781 442 1677
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] uname -a ... 32bit vs 64bit

[Octave Orgeron]

Technically, i386 is correct. It's the base processor ISA architecture. Most 
software is still 32 bit, so backwards compatibility is key, as a result the 
lowest common denominator on the x64/x68 platform is i386. This is the same 
result as you would expect on SPARC where uname -p will report "sparc". Even 
though it could an ultrasparc, sparc64, etc. The point being that uname -p will 
report the lowest common platform denominator.

So now.. the question becomes.. why?

Well you wouldn't want software or libraries to barf all over you because the 
lowest common platform denominator was amd64 would you? Last time I looked.. 
few OS's have the kernel and user-land in 64bit like Tru64 Unix. So this is 
important for applications, compilers, installation scripts, etc. When you want 
to compile 64bit apps or even take advantage of CPU specific features and what 
not.. that's where isainfo becomes key to laying out what your processor 
supports. Good example:

$ uname -a
SunOS katana 5.11 snv_101b i86pc i386 i86pc
$ isainfo
amd64 i386
$ isainfo -v
64-bit amd64 applications
ahf sse3 sse2 sse fxsr amd_3dnowx amd_3dnow amd_mmx mmx cmov amd_sysc 
cx8 tsc fpu 
32-bit i386 applications
ahf sse3 sse2 sse fxsr amd_3dnowx amd_3dnow amd_mmx mmx cmov amd_sysc 
cx8 tsc fpu 

Now putting all that info into uname would just complicate life for everyone 
and break all sorts of stuff. As such, uname is for very high-level info and 
isainfo is for detailed.

 *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Octave J. Orgeron
Solaris Virtualization Architect and Consultant
Web: http://unixconsole.blogspot.com
E-Mail: unixcons...@yahoo.com
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*



- Original Message 
From: Alexander Eremin 
To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 11:35:26 AM
Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] uname -a ... 32bit vs 64bit

> 
> 
> Alexander Eremin wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I see now it's a bug 2820 "Uname -m" does not
> report Operating System's mode correctly (32 or 64
> bit).
> 
> It's not supposed to:
> 
> -mPrints the machine hardware
>  name  (class).
> Use  of  this  option  is
> discouraged. Use
> uname -p instead. 
I'm about 'uname -p'. I think it's not  normal when 'uname -p' tell me 'i386' 
on machine with 64bit cpu..

Regards,
Alex
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org



  
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] uname -a ... 32bit vs 64bit

[Martin Bochnig]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Alan Coopersmith
 wrote:
>
> Martin Bochnig wrote:
>> Even on 2009.06_b111:
>> mar...@opensolaris:~$ uname -m
>> i86pc
>> mar...@opensolaris:~$ uname -p
>> i386
>> mar...@opensolaris:~$ uname -a
>> SunOS opensolaris 5.11 snv_111 i86pc i386 i86pc Solaris
>> mar...@opensolaris:~$ arch -k
>> i86pc
>> mar...@opensolaris:~$ isainfo -k
>> amd64
>> --->>
>> Everything but isainfo shows incorrect results (not only o this box, on 
>> _many_).
>> <<---
>
> Those all look correct to me.   Would you want your box to report that it 
> can't
> run i386 binaries and break far more software and scripts?


Yes, exactly.
Please.

Let's look 10 years ahead.
I'm not against the Solaris way (in contrast to LinUX) that bo th
kernels are shipped in the same distro and the right one is chosen
automatically.
Further: Be aware that I am - and always have been - totally
pro- 32bit_userland_libs_all_here___/___$plat64_all_there on the same system.
That's great.

But IMO - as per definition - when you boot into a 32bit kernel you
are not running the same platform, as if you boot the platform's
corresponding 64bit kernel.
Those two (such as sparcv8plus vs. sparcv9 on Ultra I and II systems,
or i386 vs. amd64 on the PC, are _distinct_ platforms.
And as long as arch or uname output dos not reflect this, I consider
it a bug, very objectively do so.

I see the point, but have a different opinion for a few years already,
as written earlier - from time to time.


--
%martin
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] uname -a ... 32bit vs 64bit

[Alexander Eremin]

> 
> 
> Alexander Eremin wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I see now it's a bug 2820 "Uname -m" does not
> report Operating System's mode correctly (32 or 64
> bit).
> 
> It's not supposed to:
> 
> -mPrints the machine hardware
>  name  (class).
> Use  of  this  option  is
> discouraged. Use
> uname -p instead. 
I'm about 'uname -p'. I think it's not  normal when 'uname -p' tell me 'i386' 
on machine with 64bit cpu..

Regards,
Alex
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] uname -a ... 32bit vs 64bit

[Alan Coopersmith]

Martin Bochnig wrote:
> Even on 2009.06_b111:
> mar...@opensolaris:~$ uname -m
> i86pc
> mar...@opensolaris:~$ uname -p
> i386
> mar...@opensolaris:~$ uname -a
> SunOS opensolaris 5.11 snv_111 i86pc i386 i86pc Solaris
> mar...@opensolaris:~$ arch -k
> i86pc
> mar...@opensolaris:~$ isainfo -k
> amd64
> --->>
> Everything but isainfo shows incorrect results (not only o this box, on 
> _many_).
> <<---

Those all look correct to me.   Would you want your box to report that it can't
run i386 binaries and break far more software and scripts?

-- 
-Alan Coopersmith-   alan.coopersm...@sun.com
 Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] uname -a ... 32bit vs 64bit

[Martin Bochnig]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Martin Bochnig  wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Alan Coopersmith
>  wrote:
>>
>>
>> Alexander Eremin wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> I see now it's a bug 2820 "Uname -m" does not report Operating System's 
>>> mode correctly (32 or 64 bit).
>>
>> It's not supposed to:
>>
>>     -m                Prints the machine hardware name  (class).
>>                       Use  of  this  option  is discouraged. Use
>>                       uname -p instead. See NOTES section below.
>>
>>     The arch -k and uname -m commands return equivalent  values;
>>     however,  the use of either of these commands by third party
>>     programs is discouraged, as is the use of the  arch  command
>>     in  general.  To  determine  the  machine's  Instruction Set
>>     Architecture (ISA or processor type), use uname with the  -p
>>     option.
>
>
>
> isainfo -k was always the "recommended" way.



And still!!
Even on 2009.06_b111:

mar...@opensolaris:~$ prtdiag
System Configuration: FUJITSU SIEMENS AMILO Notebook Pa 3515
BIOS Configuration: Phoenix Technologies LTD V1.1310/06/2008

 Processor Sockets 

Version  Location Tag
 --
Athlon X2 QL-62  Socket S1G2

 Memory Device Sockets 

TypeStatus Set Device Locator  Bank Locator
--- -- --- --- 
DDR2in use 1   S1  DIMM1
DDR2in use 2   S2  DIMM2

 On-Board Devices =
ATI RS690M
ESS 1869

 Upgradeable Slots 

ID  StatusType Description
--- -  
11  available PCI  MINI PCI
mar...@opensolaris:~$ psrinfo -v
Status of virtual processor 0 as of: 04/27/2009 18:54:26
  on-line since 04/27/2009 14:37:36.
  The i386 processor operates at 2000 MHz,
and has an i387 compatible floating point processor.
Status of virtual processor 1 as of: 04/27/2009 18:54:26
  on-line since 04/27/2009 14:37:39.
  The i386 processor operates at 2000 MHz,
and has an i387 compatible floating point processor.
mar...@opensolaris:~$ uname -m
i86pc
mar...@opensolaris:~$ uname -p
i386
mar...@opensolaris:~$ uname -a
SunOS opensolaris 5.11 snv_111 i86pc i386 i86pc Solaris
mar...@opensolaris:~$ arch -k
i86pc
mar...@opensolaris:~$ isainfo -k
amd64
mar...@opensolaris:~$


--->>
Everything but isainfo shows incorrect results (not only o this box, on _many_).
<<---


>
> %martin
>
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] uname -a ... 32bit vs 64bit

[Martin Bochnig]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Alan Coopersmith
 wrote:
>
>
> Alexander Eremin wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I see now it's a bug 2820 "Uname -m" does not report Operating System's mode 
>> correctly (32 or 64 bit).
>
> It's not supposed to:
>
>     -m                Prints the machine hardware name  (class).
>                       Use  of  this  option  is discouraged. Use
>                       uname -p instead. See NOTES section below.
>
>     The arch -k and uname -m commands return equivalent  values;
>     however,  the use of either of these commands by third party
>     programs is discouraged, as is the use of the  arch  command
>     in  general.  To  determine  the  machine's  Instruction Set
>     Architecture (ISA or processor type), use uname with the  -p
>     option.



isainfo -k was always the "recommended" way.

%martin
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] uname -a ... 32bit vs 64bit

[Alan Coopersmith]

Alexander Eremin wrote:
> Hi,
> I see now it's a bug 2820 "Uname -m" does not report Operating System's mode 
> correctly (32 or 64 bit).

It's not supposed to:

 -mPrints the machine hardware name  (class).
   Use  of  this  option  is discouraged. Use
   uname -p instead. See NOTES section below.

 The arch -k and uname -m commands return equivalent  values;
 however,  the use of either of these commands by third party
 programs is discouraged, as is the use of the  arch  command
 in  general.  To  determine  the  machine's  Instruction Set
 Architecture (ISA or processor type), use uname with the  -p
 option.

-- 
-Alan Coopersmith-   alan.coopersm...@sun.com
 Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] uname -a ... 32bit vs 64bit

[Martin Bochnig]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Alexander Eremin  wrote:
> Hi,
> I see now it's a bug 2820 "Uname -m" does not report Operating System's mode 
> correctly (32 or 64 bit).
> Why not be use SI_ARCHITECTURE_K instead of  SI_ARCHITECTURE for -p flag 
> (-m?) in "uname" code?
> After changing this I tested uname on usual 32bit PC and on my Toshiba A300 
> laptop, which cpu has 64bit support and OpenSolaris loads 64bit kernel on it 
> (but old uname reporting i386):
> # ./new.uname -p    # on 32bit PC
> i386
> # ./new.uname -p   # on Toshiba
> amd64
>
>
> Regards,
> Alexander Eremin


+5

I have the same thing on my local systems for quite some time.
But nobody understood it as a bug so I kept my mouth shut, after my
initial complaints in 2006 as well as a few weeks agin in this thread.


%martin
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] uname -a ... 32bit vs 64bit

[Alexander Eremin]

Hi,
I see now it's a bug 2820 "Uname -m" does not report Operating System's mode 
correctly (32 or 64 bit).
Why not be use SI_ARCHITECTURE_K instead of  SI_ARCHITECTURE for -p flag (-m?) 
in "uname" code?
After changing this I tested uname on usual 32bit PC and on my Toshiba A300 
laptop, which cpu has 64bit support and OpenSolaris loads 64bit kernel on it 
(but old uname reporting i386):
# ./new.uname -p# on 32bit PC
i386
# ./new.uname -p   # on Toshiba
amd64


Regards,
Alexander Eremin
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] uname -a ... 32bit vs 64bit

[UNIX admin]

> Also: I personally don't understand why Sun made that
> design decision
> back in 1997/98 to treat a booted 32bit kernel and
> booted 64bit kernel
> as the same platform, and hence to identify it with
> the same uname()
> field values. In this case I prefer how linux handles
> it.

Why? It makes perfect sense. When you're on Solaris, the system is 
*architected* such that you don't care whether you're on 32- or 64-bit 
(/usr/lib/64, isaexec(3C)), and it is *engineered* such that it will 
automatically use/boot the correct kernel.

So why worry about it?  Why care about it, if the system can figure it out for 
himself?
I would think that all you should be concerned with as a developer is to 
deliver both 32- and 64-bit versions of your binaries in a single package, and 
let isaexec(3C) figure it out for you; and as a consumer, you shouldn't have to 
break your head about such things; that is one of the things which were 
architected and engineered correctly in my experience.
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] uname -a ... 32bit vs 64bit

[Casper . Dik]

>Also: I personally don't understand why Sun made that design decision
>back in 1997/98 to treat a booted 32bit kernel and booted 64bit kernel
>as the same platform, and hence to identify it with the same uname()
>field values. In this case I prefer how linux handles it.

Why?  In that time you upgraded from a 32 bit Solaris (on 64 bit hardware)
to 64 bit Solaris.  It was important to make everything work the same.

>Of course it is trivial to depend on isainfo for configure scripts or
>automated choice of Makefiles, but this stuff belongs into different
>platforms and correspondingly into separate uname() fields.

The philosophy is different: in Solaris *ALWAYS* runs 32 bit binaries
and, if when running a 64 bit kernel, you can also run 64 bit binaries.

In other operating systems, they are two different platforms/  
Particularly in the beginning, you need to install 32 bit libraries to be 
able to run 32 bit binaries (so the Linux folks complain about not having 
a x64 Acroread, flash reader) whereas the Solaris folks don't care.

Casper

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] uname -a ... 32bit vs 64bit

[UNIX admin]

> 
> P {
>   MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px
> }
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  size="2">When I run "uname -a" it
> says:
> SunOS
> hostname 5.10 Generic_137138-09 i86pc i386
> i86pc
>  size="2"> 
> In the
> past, I've seen the system say "x86_64"
> when you're 64bit.  And I've also seen it say
> "32bit" when you're 32bit.  But now it
> says nothing, so I'm left confused.


Actually, that above, "i386 i86pc i386" is the standard string as returned by 
Solaris.

"i86pc" platform contains both "i386" and "amd64" ISAs, which is why it is 
technically incorrect to refer to Solaris on the i86pc platform as "Solaris 
x86", because that would mean 32-bit Solaris only.

Further, you should not be concerned about whether your OS is 32- or 64-bit, 
since Solaris runs BOTH at the same time, transparently.

If your hardware is 64-bit capable and you haven't explicitly forced booting of 
a 32-bit kernel in GRUB, Solaris will automatically be in 64-bit mode, while 
still being able to execute 32-bit applications transparently; in fact, most 
binaries will still be 32-bit, even though the system would be running a 64-bit 
kernel!

However, if you really want to know, all you have to run is:

isainfo -vk
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] uname -a ... 32bit vs 64bit

[Martin Bochnig]

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 2:54 AM, Edward Ned Harvey  wrote:
> I was confused by the bootup kernel messages.  The kernel message when you
> boot from DVD says 32bit.  The kernel message booting from hard drive (I
> think) says x86_64.  Both messages I see regularly, and look similar to the
> uname -a output.  So that explains the confusion.



The SXCE DVD doesn't contain the amd64 kernel in its miniroot boot archive.
Therefore the IA32 kernel gets booted by default, rather than
autodetection of amd64 if supported, else IA32 (like when you boot
from hdd).

Also: I personally don't understand why Sun made that design decision
back in 1997/98 to treat a booted 32bit kernel and booted 64bit kernel
as the same platform, and hence to identify it with the same uname()
field values. In this case I prefer how linux handles it.

Of course it is trivial to depend on isainfo for configure scripts or
automated choice of Makefiles, but this stuff belongs into different
platforms and correspondingly into separate uname() fields.
But I don't want to start a fight.
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] uname -a ... 32bit vs 64bit

[Edward Ned Harvey]

> > In the past, I've seen the system say "x86_64" when you're 64bit.
> And I've also seen it say "32bit" when you're 32bit.  But now it says
> nothing, so I'm left confused.
> 
> So you have not been on Solaris in the past.

I was confused by the bootup kernel messages.  The kernel message when you
boot from DVD says 32bit.  The kernel message booting from hard drive (I
think) says x86_64.  Both messages I see regularly, and look similar to the
uname -a output.  So that explains the confusion.

Thanks for the quick response everyone.

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] uname -a ... 32bit vs 64bit

[Joerg Schilling]

Edward Ned Harvey  wrote:

> When I run "uname -a" it says:
> SunOS hostname 5.10 Generic_137138-09 i86pc i386 i86pc
>
> In the past, I've seen the system say "x86_64" when you're 64bit.  And I've 
> also seen it say "32bit" when you're 32bit.  But now it says nothing, so I'm 
> left confused.

So you have not been on Solaris in the past.

Sun offers 64 Bit OS platforms since 12 years and there never was a way 
to tell via the uname -a output whether a 32 bit or a 64 bit OS is running.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
   j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni)  
   joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: 
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] uname -a ... 32bit vs 64bit

[Milan Cermak]

Hi Ed,
isainfo tool might help you.

$ isainfo
amd64 i386
$ isainfo -v
64-bit amd64 applications
ahf sse3 sse2 sse fxsr amd_3dnowx amd_3dnow amd_mmx mmx cmov 
amd_sysc

cx8 tsc fpu
32-bit i386 applications
ahf sse3 sse2 sse fxsr amd_3dnowx amd_3dnow amd_mmx mmx cmov 
amd_sysc

cx8 tsc fpu
Milan

Edward Ned Harvey wrote:

When I run "uname -a" it says:
SunOS hostname 5.10 Generic_137138-09 i86pc i386 i86pc
In the past, I've seen the system say "x86_64" when you're 64bit. And
I've also seen it say "32bit" when you're 32bit. But now it says
nothing, so I'm left confused.
How can I know if my system is 64bit or 32bit anymore?

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] uname -a ... 32bit vs 64bit

[Alan Coopersmith]

Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> When I run "uname -a" it says:
> SunOS hostname 5.10 Generic_137138-09 i86pc i386 i86pc
>  
> In the past, I've seen the system say "x86_64" when you're 64bit.  And
> I've also seen it say "32bit" when you're 32bit.  But now it says
> nothing, so I'm left confused.

Solaris uname has never said either of those - perhaps you're thinking
of other OS'es (x86_64) or the kernel boot message (32-bit).

> How can I know if my system is 64bit or 32bit anymore?

Same way you always have on Solaris (well, where "always" goes back
to the introduction of the 64-bit SPARC kernel in Solaris 7 in 1998):
isainfo -kv

-- 
-Alan Coopersmith-   alan.coopersm...@sun.com
 Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] uname -a ... 32bit vs 64bit

[Edward Ned Harvey]

Thank you.  That's perfect.



From: Shawn Walker [swal...@opensolaris.org]
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 2:08 PM
To: Edward Ned Harvey
Cc: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] uname -a ... 32bit vs 64bit

Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> When I run "uname -a" it says:
> SunOS hostname 5.10 Generic_137138-09 i86pc i386 i86pc
>
> In the past, I've seen the system say "x86_64" when you're 64bit.  And
> I've also seen it say "32bit" when you're 32bit.  But now it says
> nothing, so I'm left confused.
>
> How can I know if my system is 64bit or 32bit anymore?

Use:
$ isainfo
amd64 i386

or:
$ isainfo -v
64-bit amd64 applications
ssse3 cx16 mon sse3 sse2 sse fxsr mmx cmov amd_sysc cx8 tsc fpu
32-bit i386 applications
ssse3 ahf cx16 mon sse3 sse2 sse fxsr mmx cmov sep cx8 tsc fpu

Cheers,
-Shawn
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] uname -a ... 32bit vs 64bit

[Cyril Plisko]

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Edward Ned Harvey  wrote:
> When I run "uname -a" it says:
> SunOS hostname 5.10 Generic_137138-09 i86pc i386 i86pc
>
> In the past, I've seen the system say "x86_64" when you're 64bit.  And I've
> also seen it say "32bit" when you're 32bit.  But now it says nothing, so I'm
> left confused.

"uname -a" never revealed the bitness of the kernel. You may be seeing
this on Linux, but not on Solaris.

> How can I know if my system is 64bit or 32bit anymore?

"isainfo -k" tells you what kernel you are using, i.e.

-- 
Regards,
Cyril
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] uname -a ... 32bit vs 64bit

[Robert Thurlow]

Edward Ned Harvey wrote:


How can I know if my system is 64bit or 32bit anymore?


The best way is probably 'isainfo':

kootenay[19]% isainfo
amd64 i386
kootenay[22]% isainfo -v
64-bit amd64 applications
sse2 sse fxsr amd_3dnowx amd_3dnow amd_mmx mmx cmov amd_sysc 
cx8 tsc

fpu
32-bit i386 applications
ahf sse2 sse fxsr amd_3dnowx amd_3dnow amd_mmx mmx cmov 
amd_sysc cx8

tsc fpu


This machine runs both 32- and 64-bit binaries.

Rob T
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] uname -a ... 32bit vs 64bit

[Casper . Dik]

>When I run "uname -a" it says:
>SunOS hostname 5.10 Generic_137138-09 i86pc i386 i86pc
>
>In the past, I've seen the system say "x86_64" when you're 64bit.  And I've 
>also seen it say "32bi
t" when you're 32bit.  But now it says nothing, so I'm left confused.
>
>How can I know if my system is 64bit or 32bit anymore?

Solaris never did that.

Try:
isainfo -v

Casper

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] uname -a ... 32bit vs 64bit

[Ignacio Marambio Catán]

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Edward Ned Harvey  wrote:
> When I run "uname -a" it says:
> SunOS hostname 5.10 Generic_137138-09 i86pc i386 i86pc
>
> In the past, I've seen the system say "x86_64" when you're 64bit.  And I've
> also seen it say "32bit" when you're 32bit.  But now it says nothing, so I'm
> left confused.
>
> How can I know if my system is 64bit or 32bit anymore?

isainfo -k
uname -a in linux does say x86_64 or whatever

> ___
> opensolaris-discuss mailing list
> opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
>
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] uname -a ... 32bit vs 64bit

[Shawn Walker]

Edward Ned Harvey wrote:

When I run "uname -a" it says:
SunOS hostname 5.10 Generic_137138-09 i86pc i386 i86pc
 
In the past, I've seen the system say "x86_64" when you're 64bit.  And 
I've also seen it say "32bit" when you're 32bit.  But now it says 
nothing, so I'm left confused.
 
How can I know if my system is 64bit or 32bit anymore?


Use:
$ isainfo
amd64 i386

or:
$ isainfo -v
64-bit amd64 applications
ssse3 cx16 mon sse3 sse2 sse fxsr mmx cmov amd_sysc cx8 tsc fpu
32-bit i386 applications
ssse3 ahf cx16 mon sse3 sse2 sse fxsr mmx cmov sep cx8 tsc fpu

Cheers,
-Shawn
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org