This web mail archive is frozen.
This page is part of a frozen web archive of this mailing list.
You can still navigate around this archive, but know that no new mails
have been added to it since July of 2016.
Click here to be taken to the new web archives of this list; it includes all the mails that are in this frozen archive plus all new mails that have been sent to the list since it was migrated to the new archives.
On Mar 26, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Brice Goglin wrote:
> > I like "Proc" instead of "P" even for the non-v output. :-)
> I am not against it, but I don't remember the reason for the initial
> change. Maybe because "processor" is confusing for some people (logical
> vs physical socket) ?
Oh crap. I think you're right. And I think I even asked for that. ;-)
Is it a crime to use the full word "Processor"? At least on my machine, the output width is still far less than 80 characters, so the full word should be no problem. But I don't know if there are other strange topologies out there that would take up more space...? (it certainly would in the graphic output...)
> > Is the Machine memory size supposed to agree between the two outputs, or does the -v output roll up some sizes together?
> > Machine (3945MB)
> > Machine (phys=0 local=4039640KB total=4039640KB)
> We divide by 1024 until we find something between 1 and 10000 iirc, and
> then we round to the nearest integer.
Ah. Maybe in -v mode, we should print bytes, not KB or MB. Completely un-ambiguous that way.
> > I'm obviously good with -v having more information. I guess my reaction was because it wasn't just *more* information -- the *same* information was in a different format, and that struck me as weird.
> Don't know :)
For corporate legal information go to: