On Oct 26, 2013, at 10:54 AM, Izumi Tsutsui <tsut...@ceres.dti.ne.jp> wrote:
>>> By static MACHINE_ARCH, or dynamic sysctl(3)? >>> If dynamic sysctl(3) is prefered, which node? >> >> hw.machine_arch >> >> which has been defined for a long long time. > > Yes, defined before sf vs hf issue arised, and > you have changed the definition (i.e. make it dynamic) > without public discussion. That's the problem. It was already dynamic (it changes for compat_netbsd32).
