[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] define _BSD_SOURCE for bktr.c

[Brad]

On Saturday 27 December 2008 05:26:47 Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 11:28:41PM +0000, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> > Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de> writes:
> > > On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 06:58:55PM +0000, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> > >> Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de> writes:
> > >> > On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:02:55PM +0000, Jacob Meuser wrote:
> > >> >> http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=arch
> > >> >> http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=uname
> > >> >
> > >> > Executive summary: 'uname' outputs the host architecture, 'arch'
> > >> > outputs the target architecture.
> > >>
> > >> What you just said makes no sense.  Those commands always report
> > >> characteristics of the machine on which they run; cross-compiling is
> > >> irrelevant here.
> > >>
> > >> I think the answer is that the BSD uname reports the system type
> > >> rather than the CPU architecture, e.g. pc instead of x86.  The
> > >> standard is sufficiently vague ("the name of the hardware type") that
> > >> an implementation can get away with this, annoying though it may be.
> > >>
> > >> GNU coreutils includes an "arch" command documented as being
> > >> equivalent to "uname -m".
> > >
> > > FWIW, on my Debian system, 'arch' is part of the util-linux package.
> > > However, for whatever reason, it's only present on the Debian stable
> > > box, the Debian testing box no longer has it...
> >
> > What does it report, this "arch" of yours?
>
> This is from a Debian stable box at the university:
>
> diego at hutch:~$ arch
> x86_64

>From looking around there are only a few OS's with arch(1). Solaris, some
Linux-based OS's, OpenBSD, Darwin (so I would assume OS X?). But there
seem to be differences in behavior..

$ arch
OpenBSD.i386
$ arch -s
i386

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.