From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 19 22:17:20 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A0211065676; Mon, 19 Jul 2010 22:17:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D5458FC19; Mon, 19 Jul 2010 22:17:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o6JMHGmc066479; Mon, 19 Jul 2010 16:17:16 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1078) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Scott Long In-Reply-To: <20100719215746.GC2381@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 16:17:16 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20100719213054.GB2381@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20100719215746.GC2381@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> To: Kostik Belousov X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-50.0 required=3.8 tests=ALL_TRUSTED, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.0 (2010-01-18) on pooker.samsco.org Cc: amd64@freebsd.org, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: uname -m/-p for compat32 binaries X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 22:17:20 -0000 Just checked, and I was a little off. We don't actually do this in the = kernel, we override it in the environment UNAME_ variables. All of our = software that wants to look at the machine arch uses uname to do it, so = we go that route. That way, we're not really lying to anything that = wants to get the definitive answer from the hw.machine architecture. I = can't defend it any further than that, maybe Peter or Paul or John can = comment on it. I personally don't see one way as being better than the = other, as they both have potential problems. As you noted in your = previous email, it's an easy change that could have been done long ago; = maybe the fact that it hasn't points to a good reason not to. Scott On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:57 PM, Kostik Belousov wrote: > On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 03:52:31PM -0600, Scott Long wrote: >> We do something similar at yahoo, and it's code that we're working >> on packaging up to put back into FreeBSD. I don't know how your code >> differs from ours, and I obviously cannot stop you from committing >> yours, but you're welcome to look at our code. > There is obviously no rush to commit this snippet, and I obviously = would > abstain if this would make larger integration harder. >=20 > Where to look ? Or should I just sit and wait ?