jhuntwork at linuxfromscratch.org
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.
More information about the lfs-dev