[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#254598: Name of the Debian x86-64/AMD64 port

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, Chris Cheney wrote:

> Perhaps you haven't read my emails since the list software ate them?


> thing that uses x86_64 exclusively is the _Linux_ kernel. As I mentioned
> in the previous email out of the various os/dist that support the
> x86_64/amd64 arch 8 out of 9 call it _amd64_. That is a fairly clear
> majority.

You and Scott seem to be saying opposite things here. Can you guys get the
facts straight please?

Keep in mind that documentation is entirely different from what the actual
tools/etc use. I _expect_ that all documentation produced to date will use
AMD64 as that is the name AMD demands that vendors use. When em64t hits
the market I expect that all documentation will be updated to say 
'AMD64 and em64t'. Putting x86-64 in documentation would be foolish.

What the tools use isn't going to change quite so easially.

> Intel doesn't know what it wants to call the arch it just knows it
> doesn't want to refer to it by the arch's proper name. They have used
> both em64t and ia32e to refer to the amd64 arch.

Well, as odd as it seems intel's docs suggest that em64t == amd64 and
ia32e == long mode. They don't refer to the same thing. They do seem to
have recently added em64t though. Wee.

> Even the LSB refers to the arch as amd64 everywhere but the packaging
> part, the only reason I can tell that x86_64 is used for packaging is

Well, we are talking about packaging and the arch name in the LSB as
used for packaging is relevent and isn't likely to change.


Reply to: