Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:58:09 -0800 From: "Kip Macy" <kip.macy@gmail.com> To: obrien@freebsd.org, "Kip Macy" <kip.macy@gmail.com>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is it possible to debug an AMD kernel on Intel Message-ID: <b1fa29170711261058s5d5e1631y27ae8486e0707f34@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20071126180500.GB79600@dragon.NUXI.org> References: <m2fxyu5tsy.wl%gnn@neville-neil.com> <474983F1.3030700@pbxpress.com> <m2ve7p35iy.wl%gnn@neville-neil.com> <b1fa29170711252232yb798d46w9aa74f55954250f5@mail.gmail.com> <20071126180500.GB79600@dragon.NUXI.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Nov 26, 2007 10:05 AM, David O'Brien <obrien@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 10:32:13PM -0800, Kip Macy wrote: > > Also can we do what the rest of the world does and refer to it as > > x86_64 or 64-bit intel? Continuing to refer to it as amd (I know they > > came up with instruction set extensions but its now a fundamental part > > of the x86 ISA) only serves to confuse new users. > > NO. AMD pioneered this platform. Without them we'd all be unhappily > headed towards IA64's. It is Intel that has constantly chosen to confuse > its customers. This is not a problem for The FreeBSD Project to fix. Yes David, we do owe AMD a debt of thanks for accelerating the death of ia64. But I have to burst your bubble. They are EXTENSIONS to 32-bit Intel not a new ISA. And conservative extensions at that. I'm not advocating we change the name of the architecture in the tree, but we are in a small minority in using AMD instead of x86_64 or 64-bit intel. In the future I'll remember to re-direct all "Can I run an amd64 kernel on an Intel processor?" questions to you. And if you don't answer promptly I'll give them my opinion on things. Cheers, Kiphome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?b1fa29170711261058s5d5e1631y27ae8486e0707f34>