Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 17:40:42 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> Cc: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 28461 for review Message-ID: <XFMail.20030409174042.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20030409181005.A975B2A7EA@canning.wemm.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 09-Apr-2003 Peter Wemm wrote: > Marcel Moolenaar wrote: >> 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* > > 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. This would work for me. This is similar to how sparc64 defines both __sparc64__ and __sparc_v9__, etc. >> BTW: To what extend is the actual name important? Is it only >> 'uname -m' that really matters (toolchain bordercases aside)? > > Having $MACHINE_ARCH different to #ifdef __$MACHINE_ARCH__ would be an > ongoing problem I think. Yes, we would need to make it consistent across the board as far as FreeBSD sources are concerned. I prefer amd64 personally as x86-64 is indeed an ugly name. :) -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.20030409174042.jhb>