From owner-freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 17 22:54:47 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 7686816A4CE for ; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 22:54:47 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.wolves.k12.mo.us (duey.wolves.k12.mo.us [207.160.214.9]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46B6143D2F for ; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 22:54:47 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from cdillon@wolves.k12.mo.us) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.wolves.k12.mo.us (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD78F1FE24; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:54:46 -0600 (CST) Received: from mail.wolves.k12.mo.us ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.wolves.k12.mo.us [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 91379-04-7; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:54:44 -0600 (CST) Received: by mail.wolves.k12.mo.us (Postfix, from userid 1001) id C451B1FE22; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:54:44 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.wolves.k12.mo.us (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFF321A902; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:54:44 -0600 (CST) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:54:44 -0600 (CST) From: Chris Dillon To: Peter Wemm In-Reply-To: <200412171320.29035.peter@wemm.org> Message-ID: <20041217163633.C92691@duey.wolves.k12.mo.us> References: <20041217194806.GA2437@ack.Berkeley.EDU> <20041217205845.GM38136@submonkey.net> <200412171320.29035.peter@wemm.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at wolves.k12.mo.us cc: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.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 22:54:47 -0000 On Fri, 17 Dec 2004, Peter Wemm wrote: > 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".. Not that it matters much what I say, but I'm perfectly happy with "amd64". I'm all for giving credit where credit is due, and AMD is the one that came up with this instruction set that Intel was so dead-set on not having anything to do with in the first place. From what I understand, after Intel realized they missed the boat they considered coming up with their own different 64-bit x86 extensions to compete with AMD and Microsoft told them they wouldn't support yet another platform, essentially forcing Intel to use AMD's instruction set or die. The only reason Intel has processors which support the amd64 instruction set today is because the market forced them to, and they didn't even do a bang-up job implementing it, either (they're missing a couple of instructions, IIRC). This is an example where everyone probably SHOULD be unfair to Intel in the naming of the architecture, just out of spite. :-) -- Chris Dillon - cdillon(at)wolves.k12.mo.us FreeBSD: The fastest, most open, and most stable OS on the planet - Available for IA32, IA64, AMD64, PC98, Alpha, and UltraSPARC architectures - PowerPC, ARM, MIPS, and S/390 under development - http://www.freebsd.org Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. A: Why is putting a reply at the top of the message frowned upon?