Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 19:42:31 +0200 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> Cc: David O'Brien <obrien@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 28461 for review Message-ID: <35466.1049910151@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 09 Apr 2003 10:38:30 PDT." <20030409173830.GA549@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20030409173830.GA549@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net>, Marcel Moolenaar writes : >> This gets hairy... if the toolchain calls it one thing and we call it >> another. AMD marketing is trying to squash the "x86-64" name in favaor >> of "AMD64". Note that "AMD64" is what M$ has always called it... so one >> has to wonder... > >BTW: To what extend is the actual name important? Is it only >'uname -m' that really matters (toolchain bordercases aside)? Considering that AMD64 seems to be the only thing to prevent Intel from ramming Itanics down our throats with it's near monopoly, I think it is important to respect AMD's naming. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?35466.1049910151>