Coreutils Nitpick

Jeremy Huntwork jhuntwork at
Tue Sep 28 15:32:41 PDT 2004

On Tue, 2004-09-28 at 18:17 -0400, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
> > "The following patch fixes this behavior for Intel architectures:"
> > 
> > Best as I can tell, the patch fixes it for more than just Intel 
> > arches. I know it fixes it for my athlon-4. Perhaps:
> > 
> > s/Intel/x86/   ??
> When I see "Intel" I think "Intel compatible", which includes AMD's 32
> and 64 bit chips (and also Via C3s, etc.)...  but that's just me.
> Maybe that's because there are no (functional) differences between the
> Intel chips and the clones, and therefore it makes no sense to me to
> differentiate them for something like this?  I can see that that's not
> intuitive, though.

Indeed. Doesn't the i in i386 stand for Intel? And yet that arch in the
kernel is really for all x86 compatible.  x86 is probably a clearer way
to say what you mean, though.

Just be sure that you're definitely specifying that patch will break
non-x86 archs, such as ppc. I accidently applied the patch when building
coreutils on my ppc and make died. Just a thought.

Jeremy Huntwork

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list