Re: LSB1.1: /proc/cpuinfo
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 05:53:38PM -0500, Stuart Anderson wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > This differs from current practice on some Linux architectures, e.g.
> > PowerPc, ARM or Sparc/SMP.
> Can you please provide some examples? All of the examples I was able to aquire
> fit the description (actually, it was written to fit the exmaples 8-)).
What about checking yourself :)
I have collected a number of examples on:
> I'd like avoid /proc completely, but we needed a way to determine what
> processor features are available (especially on IA32). Without this, we have
> to choose the i486 feature set as the least common denominator (ie no MMX, etc).
Maybe you should introduce something like uname -f (f for features) in
LSB and make this backed by /proc/cpuinfo in the current implementation?
This way applications do not have to worry about changes to kernel
Of course it doesn't work. We've performed a software upgrade.