Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 18:48:33 -0800 From: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> To: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> Cc: Peter Wemm <peter@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/amd64/amd64 identcpu.c Message-ID: <200403061848.33776.peter@wemm.org> In-Reply-To: <20040306102629.O38217@root.org> References: <20040306005134.8F98016A536@hub.freebsd.org> <20040306102629.O38217@root.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday 06 March 2004 10:28 am, Nate Lawson wrote: > On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, Peter Wemm wrote: > > Modified files: > > sys/amd64/amd64 identcpu.c > > Log: > > When faced with a "GenuineIntel", we know what they call it now. > > Replace snide comment with a different one. > > > > Revision Changes Path > > 1.129 +2 -2 src/sys/amd64/amd64/identcpu.c > > I like how ambiguous your second sentence is. The new comment may or > may not be snide. :) > > BTW, it's pretty funny that all x86-64 machines will forever be > running the amd64 kernel (including Linux). AMD must have had some > inside information about the release cycle before changing the name. It's my understanding that it was Microsoft that was originally behind the change from x86-64 to amd64. I'm guessing that their folks hated typing the arch name with the - or _ in it. Its interesting that their most recent release that has 'windows for extended 64 bit systems' still has an arch name of amd64 though. If you extract the hal.dll from the cdroot/amd64/hal.dl_ file (see ports/archivers/cabextract) you'll see that the release does a strcmp for AuthenticAMD *and* GenuineIntel. Actually, I've also wondered privately if the Microsoft angle was also a way for them (MS) to get up Intel's nose given Intel's Linux involvement. -- Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200403061848.33776.peter>