Jim Gifford wrote: > I've just added the patch to the repo > http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/downloads/coreutils/coreutils-5.97-uname-2.patch > > Old uname patch > ----------- > # uname -a > Linux build 2.6.17.8 #1 Thu Aug 17 08:18:42 PDT 2006 i686 athlon-4 i386 > GNU/Linux > > new uname patch > ----------- > # uname -a > Linux build 2.6.17.8 #1 Thu Aug 17 08:18:42 PDT 2006 i686 AMD > Sempron(tm) 2800+ AuthenticAMD GNU/Linux
(Yes, I'm ignoring the PowerBook here.) Wasn't the point of this patch to set it up so that uname -p outputs a string that gcc -march= or gcc -mcpu= can use? (Or whatever argument gcc uses to decide which CPU to optimize for now...) Or am I confusing this with an older uname hack patch that doesn't matter anymore? In any case, athlon-4 is a valid architecture string; "AMD Sempron(tm) 2800+" is not. Does this string have to be valid for gcc?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
