/bin/true
Doug Gwyn
gwyn at brl-smoke.ARPA
Sun May 4 05:23:07 AEST 1986
In article <469 at ncr-sd.UUCP> greg at ncr-sd.UUCP (Greg Noel) writes:
>... if you add a new machine type,
>you have to put in a link on every machine in the world.
No, just on the development machines containing code for that
machine type. In particular, "elif" won't evaluate the new
machine-type command if an earlier instance is satisfied.
>A better scheme
>would have been a single command, say "machid", that only consisted of the
>command "echo gould". Then, the usual sequence of:
>...
>(an exageration, admittedly, but do \you/ have links for all those machines?)
Most of them..
>becomes:
> case `machid` in
> pdp11) ... ;;
>...
> *) echo "I don't know how to handle machine-type `machid`" ;;
> esac
I agree that this is a better approach; `uname -m` is supposed
to return a machine-type string like that. However, AT&T did
their usual number on "uname" and various vendors were left with
no guidance as to the correct meaning of the various fields.
Usually they put out useless garbage for `uname -m` instead of
the desired generic machine type.
N.B. The same machine type should be pre#defined by CPP.
More information about the Comp.unix
mailing list