Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 13:38:56 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> To: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> Cc: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 28461 for review Message-ID: <20030409203856.GA45368@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <20030409181005.A975B2A7EA@canning.wemm.org> References: <20030409173830.GA549@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> <20030409181005.A975B2A7EA@canning.wemm.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 11:10:05AM -0700, Peter Wemm wrote: > > > 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* I fail to see what is so ugly about x86-64. I think it is a perfect name that totally indicates what the platform is all about. > Could we live with a slightly modified toolchain that defines both > __x86_64__ and __amd64__ ? I'd be more than happy to rename everything > so that it was #ifdef __amd64__ and have MACHINE_ARCH=amd64 for > $dir/amd64/* etc. But we can't stop defining __x86_64__ since thats what > linux and the FSF camp appear to use. Lots of third party stuff will have > __x86_64__ ifdefs. As many of you know, I'm very close to the name "issue"... perhaps we can just ignore the issue for now, and let me see if I can get our BSD bretheren and toolchain and Linux people to go along with such a name change. I'd really prefer to not be the odd-man out.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030409203856.GA45368>