Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:23:58 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy <peter.jeremy@alcatel.com.au> To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/conf GENERIC Message-ID: <20010116102358.I91029@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 14-Jan-01 David O'Brien wrote: > On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 12:38:24PM -0500, Will Andrews wrote: >> > Just remember to change all the places that refer to 'i386' as the generic >> > name for the architecture if the 386 itself is dropped. :-) >> >> I think 'ia32' is a good name. :-) >> David? :-) > > I prefer "x86" as that is what the arch was known as until just > recently. Another reason is to have a little more difference between > this an "ia64" just to make reduce mis-reading and to help command-line > completion. :-) Not to mention the code will be shared for the x86-64, > and making a non-Intel designed called "Intel Architecture" is just yucky. IMHO, changing the name "i386" to something else is a severe violation of POLA. Who wants to answer -questions after 5.0-RELEASE appears with no /usr/src/sys/i386? In any case, I see no reason why we should totally drop 80386 support (though I agree it should be dropped from the GENERIC kernel). In which case, there's no reason not to stick with the term `i386'. Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010116102358.I91029>