-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 24 April 2003 20:00, Bart Trojanowski wrote:
> Good point... it is probably best to follow the decisions made at the
> kernel/gcc layer. And since both of these call the platform x86-64,
> that is what will stick.
No, they don't both use the exact same name, and there appears to be no
consistent naming scheme. Currently, we have:
x86-64: Old official name from AMD, used by as a target name in
binutils, gcc, autoconf, etc. Cannot be used as part of an
identifier in C and some other programming languages.
i386:x86-64: Used in some places in binutils. Not useful for much else.
x86_64: Used in the kernel and in RPM. Cannot be used as an arch
identifier for dpkg.
x8664: Used only in a few strange places, e.g. http://arecorlib.sf.net/.
Can always be an identifier but looks like a number.
AMD64: Official marketing term, works fine but is not used in any source
code so far. If Intel ever starts shipping x86-64 CPUs, they won't
like this.
amd64: The same as AMD64 without the shouting.
Arnd <><
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+qEwF5t5GS2LDRf4RAoNSAKCMR+Vef4tgjsBKQQXH8jVvZczsUwCfVSWI
3SmxjOK02GKNPpnGrMX9hZE=
=fccx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
