Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 10:38:30 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 28461 for review Message-ID: <20030409173830.GA549@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <20030409160401.GA43342@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <200304072336.h37Na3xa048094@repoman.freebsd.org> <XFMail.20030408102356.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <20030409160401.GA43342@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 09:04:01AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote: > On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 10:23:56AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > > > > On 07-Apr-2003 Peter Wemm wrote: > > > http://perforce.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=28461 > > > > > > Change 28461 by peter@peter_daintree on 2003/04/07 16:35:32 > > > > > > use -mcmodel=medium for hammer. Otherwise it generates > > > 32 bit instructions for things like invltlb(). kernel model > > > comes later. > > > > Side topic: are we going to call it amd64 some day instead of x86-64? > > This gets hairy... if the toolchain calls it one thing and we call it > another. AMD marketing is trying to squash the "x86-64" name in favaor > of "AMD64". Note that "AMD64" is what M$ has always called it... so one > has to wonder... I agree with the concerns, but x86-64 is a particularly ugly name and uncomfortable to use in general that I'm inclined to prefer a name change in spite of the drawbacks. Think about all the scripts and makefiles containing x86_64... *shiver* BTW: To what extend is the actual name important? Is it only 'uname -m' that really matters (toolchain bordercases aside)? -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030409173830.GA549>