From owner-freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 17 21:20:31 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 429C416A4CE for ; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 21:20:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from canning.wemm.org (canning.wemm.org [192.203.228.65]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F25643D5C for ; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 21:20:31 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) Received: from fw.wemm.org (canning.wemm.org [192.203.228.65]) by canning.wemm.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05CF52A90B for ; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:20:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) Received: from overcee.wemm.org (overcee.wemm.org [10.0.0.3]) by fw.wemm.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7F17E2B5 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:20:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) Received: from overcee.wemm.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by overcee.wemm.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id iBHLKTiH076607; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:20:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by overcee.wemm.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id iBHLKTjL076606; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:20:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) X-Authentication-Warning: overcee.wemm.org: peter set sender to peter@wemm.org using -f From: Peter Wemm To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:20:28 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 References: <20041217194806.GA2437@ack.Berkeley.EDU> <20041217205845.GM38136@submonkey.net> In-Reply-To: <20041217205845.GM38136@submonkey.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200412171320.29035.peter@wemm.org> Subject: Re: [Flaimbait] "amd64" vs "x86-64" X-BeenThere: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the AMD64 platform List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 21:20:31 -0000 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