Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 16:02:25 +0200 From: Mark Stapper <stark@mapper.nl> To: David Southwell <david@vizion2000.net>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kernel designations terminology confusion -- amd64 used for into quad core Message-ID: <4A7990F1.8010803@mapper.nl> In-Reply-To: <200908051446.02087.david@vizion2000.net> References: <200908051414.49468.david@vizion2000.net> <4A798A9C.7010201@mapper.nl> <200908051446.02087.david@vizion2000.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] David Southwell wrote: >> David Southwell wrote: >> >>> Hi every one >>> >>> My understanding is that one uses the amd64 for building a kernel for >>> systems with Intel Quad Core processors. >>> >>> It is helpful when naming conventions follow a logical strand. I mean why >>> does freebsd use a single manufacturer's name to represent a genre? >>> >>> David >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list >>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions >>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to >>> "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >>> >> One would use the amd64 version of FreeBSD on 64-bit platforms (apart >> from the itanium platforms). >> the amd64 or x86-64 instuction set has been designed by amd, which >> called it amd64. >> Intel implemented amd's design in their EM64T or "Intel 64" instruction >> set, which is compatible with amd's implementation(mostly IS amd's >> implementation). >> As such, amd64 is as valid a platform name as IA64(or Itanium) is. >> > > That is undoubtably true -- what it also means is that both names are equally > logical or illogical depending upon your point of view. > > My view is that both are equally illogical because they are tied to a > manufacturer rather than to function. Names are best chosen to facilitate > selection by single step logic that encapsulates what the name represents > rather than by having an abstruse historical context that has neglible bearing > upon current function. > > my 2 p > > But lets not get worked up about this <chuckles> > > david > > > > You make a good point. It would be more "logical" and maybe even more "correct" to call it x86-64. This would however imply that any x86-64 implementation is supported. This is probably the case now, though i am unsure if freeBSD amd64 works on for instance via platforms. Since x86-64 isn't exactly an ISO standard, and amd64 is(http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=43784), it's not strange to name the branch that has been developed to work on amd's implementation of x86-64 is called amd64. Besides, I am a real AMD fanboy when it comes to processors... so why would I want that? ;-) [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkp5kPQACgkQN9xNqOOVnWD3DwCeI645E7FcgC54ifT0E4llA2WY 06IAoITUaJnZ8Cqpy/5lzQj5iBxavkdL =1yqF -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4A7990F1.8010803>