[issue35967] Better platform.processor support

[Marc-Andre Lemburg]

Marc-Andre Lemburg <mal at egenix.com> added the comment:

On 08.03.2019 18:00, Jason R. Coombs wrote:
> 
>> Perhaps adding a more capable API to interface to /proc/cpuinfo
> would be a good idea.
> 
> The core concern I want to address is that it's not possible to use any function in the platform module without invoking "uname -p", and thus it's not possible to implement "uname" in Python. No amount of supplementary interfaces will help with that.

I don't know where you get that idea from. The uname family of APIs
do use "uname -p" on platforms where this exists, but the other
ones don't.

It's also easy to bypass that by simply seeding the global cache
for uname(): _uname_cache. Or you could call your utility
something else. Or you could monkey-patch the platform module
in your utility to work around the circular reference.

To be clear: I do not consider your use case to be particularly common
enough to warrant changes to the module, but would welcome additions
which bring more or better functionality to the module, e.g. having
the processor variable return meaningful where it previously did
not (ie. uname() return '' for the processor entry), or adding
another API to provide more detailed information.

----------

_______________________________________
Python tracker <report at bugs.python.org>
<https://bugs.python.org/issue35967>
_______________________________________