On Thu, December 22, 2016 14:51, xinglp wrote: > 2016-12-22 22:24 GMT+08:00 William Harrington <[email protected]>: >> On Thu, December 22, 2016 08:15, xinglp wrote: >>> As the below code: >>> case $(uname -m) in >>> x86) ln -s ld-linux.so.2 /lib/ld-lsb.so.3 >>> ;; >>> x86_64) ln -s ../lib/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 /lib64 >>> ln -s ../lib/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 /lib64/ld-lsb-x86-64.so.3 >>> ;; >>> esac >>> >>> On my machine, 'uname -m' only output x86_64 or i686, but never x86. >>> When will it output x86 ? >>> >>> Thanks. >> >> Hello xinglp, >> >> Uname -m will only output x86 if you reprogram it to output x86. x86 >> means >> for [456]86. >> >> If clarification is required in the book, then perhaps we can let users >> know x86 isn't the actual output expected from uname, but 486, 586 or >> 686. > Got it, thanks
Hello, It will be i[456]86 with today's coreutils uname. Even if an AMD64 machine was used with a 32bit kernel, uname -m would output i686. Check the contents of /proc/cpuinfo to verify. Sincerely, William Harrington -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
