From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 2 18:38:02 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C24A8106564A for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 18:38:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yuri.pankov@gmail.com) Received: from sirius.xvoid.org (sirius.xvoid.org [IPv6:2001:470:28:4ba:20c:29ff:fe62:9a22]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66CAF8FC14 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 18:38:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from sirius.xvoid.org (yuri@sirius.xvoid.org [IPv6:::1]) by sirius.xvoid.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q12Ic0wG041499 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 22:38:00 +0400 (MSK) (envelope-from yuri.pankov@gmail.com) Received: (from yuri@localhost) by sirius.xvoid.org (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id q12Ic0ud041498 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 22:38:00 +0400 (MSK) (envelope-from yuri.pankov@gmail.com) X-Authentication-Warning: sirius.xvoid.org: yuri set sender to yuri.pankov@gmail.com using -f Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 22:38:00 +0400 From: Yuri Pankov To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20120202183800.GA41419@sirius.xvoid.org> References: <20120202183051.GA25323@hemlock.hydra> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="wac7ysb48OaltWcw" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120202183051.GA25323@hemlock.hydra> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: uname ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 18:38:02 -0000 --wac7ysb48OaltWcw Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 11:30:51AM -0700, Chad Perrin wrote: > On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 03:09:00PM +0800, joeb1 wrote: > > It looks to me that the uname -m and uname -p always have the same > > value, such as "i386". > >=20 > > Is there some fine-grained difference or some un-documented difference > > between them > > or some combination were the values would be different? >=20 > I don't have one handy, so I don't have any way to test this right now, > but I wonder if an AMD machine might give a different answer to one of > those than an Intel machine, given a 32-bit 386 instruction set processor > for both. I *guess* they will be different for some targets in this list: $ make targets -C /usr/src Supported TARGET/TARGET_ARCH pairs for world and kernel targets amd64/amd64 arm/arm arm/armeb i386/i386 ia64/ia64 mips/mipsel mips/mipseb mips/mips64el mips/mips64eb mips/mipsn32eb pc98/i386 powerpc/powerpc powerpc/powerpc64 sparc64/sparc64 Yuri --wac7ysb48OaltWcw Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (FreeBSD) iQIcBAABAgAGBQJPKtgIAAoJEF9SuVmZPGsqRo0QANZCH64B9RkjIBcBnQKOmSgQ BN8vOkKniAiiGHHEZLLX4EKbwnehktUt+f7fHs0FvEVknM5JitENltfUZKLWkFNt jfM5lwc7ezkxuYPqfvRO1UFwCAiE6UxZN2m/BQO2XQTr6zh/o3Kotnj7EYwr6FiI 8EQUNLaxqhmTV+2dDXOnC64d7qr32ztmGDYfKaQ6UXf9loyY/1uN3JDWPtF1RXHJ L2fqLeWexof21ZdH3pVRtEvQF8dLjY4JmT0s+eco7W2E+95+ubN7Bkb9TS8EQdkQ jaoft8N0lL+TQKIX2bkKMN50PCqGBfwcS3Hi3Jky9ENoX7FlauUOK0r/c4IiYnfc OHJg4He5gkKiI3gSKaoMmyAQXDnOB0tPvSKMiHbpYHqTOQP6QcJN3373ZhF2MpMe 90R3FxIKYPHKnCTjYbHUOtG1KLQPpYIhieo/jwCSBkyTOpJ0N/oFTnEEkngYmdcQ OUeqRmeqvdU876ffDfg08PCnJZ8xZtqZ4pCXKGoHoAwYyJRJKITd/URn1lLeYHxD KD79BqBvfufpP1RQCLnL8Xpz2OfwSf5tV2MzJjffRq8W7FT7wowKDLzNhLJeWPev JAoDvOemsU+sR8rBZei3cQRtiLZhVSPx2sjg6jFRyUV2ogURLeOSC3RRSB7Hk0wc u30fHUw3y/42f/t2/ZiW =k3M+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --wac7ysb48OaltWcw--