On Monday 09 July 2007 14:56:51 Chip Marshall wrote: > On 7/9/07, Jarod Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ...only that seems in correct, from my recollection. I seem to recall > > amd64 being called x86_64 originally. Intel's implementation was then > > announced as x86-64. (note the _ vs. the - ). After that, AMD went with > > amd64 to differentiate more. But in any case, I still think x86_64 makes > > a lot more sense than amd64 for the arch tag on stuff that runs on both > > Intel and AMD 64-bit x86-compatible architectures. > > To make matters worse, according to Wikipedia[1], Intel now wants us to > call their implementation Intel 64 rather than EM64T or x86-64. To me, this > just seem to be a bad move, Intel 64 is too close to IA64.
Ew. Yeah, that's el stupido. > x86_64 or x86-64 (_ vs - be damned) seems like the best choice for a > manufacturer independant designation to me. There are good reasons for _ instead of -, from a programming standpoint. -- Jarod Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
