Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:20:28 -0800 From: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [Flaimbait] "amd64" vs "x86-64" Message-ID: <200412171320.29035.peter@wemm.org> In-Reply-To: <20041217205845.GM38136@submonkey.net> References: <20041217194806.GA2437@ack.Berkeley.EDU> <20041217205845.GM38136@submonkey.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 17 December 2004 12:58 pm, Ceri Davies wrote: > On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 11:48:06AM -0800, Mike Hunter wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I was wondering if anybody here has discussed the difference in > > terminology between FreeBSD and Linux regarding the amd64 > > architecture. Now that Intel is making chips that support AMD's > > instruction set, one could argue that it would be better to use a > > vendor-neutral term to describe the architecture. > > > > I condemn Intel for the games they've played over AMD's > > architecture, and I'm bringing this up to try to be "fair" to > > Intel; I'm only bringing it up as something that should be > > discussed as a possible help to the FreeBSD community as this > > architecture moves forward. Would the FreeBSD community stand to > > benefit to adopt Linux's "x86-64" terminology? > > It's already been discussed and we're sticking with "amd64" as it was > the first platform that we supported. NetBSD have also moved to > "amd64" from "x86-64". Check the archives for further details. Also, the gnu folks seems split to a degree. eg: binutils calls it amd64. There is no way in hell we're using "x86-64" if I have any say in it because it isn't a valid C token. "x86_64" is a PITA to type. I thought I saw somewhere that microsoft switched from "amd64" to "x64".. -- Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200412171320.29035.peter>