Re: Support now in dpkg

[Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>]

Andreas Jochens <aj@andaco.de> writes:

> On 04-Jun-02, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> On 04-Jun-02, Andreas Jochens wrote:
>> > On 04-Jun-02, Scott James Remnant wrote:
>> > >   * it doesn't include unnecessary marketing connotations, and avoids
>> > >     the issue whether we even *can* use AMD's name in vain
>> > 
>> > To use a more neutral name is really a good thing IMHO.
>> 
>> ... There's no such thing as
>> a 'neutral' name when you're talking about an architecture.  They're
>> developed by companies, companies put their names in them and on them.
>
> This is certainly true.
>
> However, please note that my main reason for preferring 'x86_64' instead 
> of 'amd64' is that both the toolchain and the kernel use 'x86_64'.

mrvn@dual:~/failed% gcc -mcpu=x86_64 -c foo.c
cc1: error: bad value (x86_64) for -mcpu= switch

mrvn@dual:~/failed% gcc -march=x86_64 -c foo.c
cc1: error: bad value (x86_64) for -march= switch
cc1: error: bad value (x86_64) for -mcpu= switch

The tool chain doesn't exactly use x86_64 everywhere.

> But I can also live with 'amd64', if that will be the decision.
> I am not a DD and I don't know who can decide this issue.
>
> Regards
> Andreas Jochens

MfG
        Goswin