Colin Law wrote: > On 15 November 2011 09:35, Avi Greenbury <li...@avi.co> wrote: > > Juan J. wrote: > > > >> For -m says "on which the system is running", which doesn't seem > >> to be coherent with the uname output we are getting in a 64 bit > >> system running a 32 bit kernel. > > > > It depends why you are interested. > > > > When a 686 kernel is running on an amd64 chip, it *is* running on > > 686 hardware (it must be since it is running 686 code), but it is > > some 686 hardware with extensions such that it can also run amd64 > > code. > > But if you run uname in the 64 bit OS it says that it is running on a > different type of hardware, which it is not, it is just that the 64 > bit OS uses the extensions whereas the 32 bit does not. >
No, it doesn't. It says exactly what it's running on. If you run uname on an amd64 kernel it tells you it's running on amd64 hardware, which is true even if the processor can also do 686. If you run uname on a 686 kernel it tells you it's running on 686 hardware, which is true even if the processor can also do amd64. The problem, if there is one, is that uname's man page doesn't explicitly state that it asks the kernel what it's sat atop, rather than asking the hardware for its full capabilities. -- Avi -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
