Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 10:51:27 -0700 From: Garrett Cooper <gcooper@FreeBSD.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: amd64@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: uname -m/-p for compat32 binaries Message-ID: <AANLkTilwVg10TY8UWJ1XYf4qPz93bQciGPVMmW9E3OLk@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <201007200907.24715.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <20100719213054.GB2381@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <201007200907.24715.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 6:07 AM, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Monday, July 19, 2010 5:30:54 pm Kostik Belousov wrote: >> Hi, >> I intend to commit the following change, that makes sysctls >> hw.machine_arch and hw.machine to return "i386" for 32 bit >> binaries run on amd64. In particular, 32 bit uname -m and uname -p >> print "i386", that is good for i386 jails on amd64 kernels. >> >> I find the change very useful for me, but I wonder why such trivial >> modification is not yet done. Can anybody note a possible fallout from >> it ? > > Presumably ia64 and powerpc64 would need a similar change as well? =A0It = looks > fine to me. =A0I suspect Y! used the UNAME_* approach as it didn't add ye= t- > another local diff to maintain in the kernel, and the uname fixes at Y! m= ight > have predated SCTL_MASK32. I thought amd64 was a special case because we run biarch, whereas ia64 was always 64-bit... Wouldn't this change also create problems later on down the line when we're no longer biarch? Thanks, -Garrett
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTilwVg10TY8UWJ1XYf4qPz93bQciGPVMmW9E3OLk>