On Sunday 2012-07-08 07:05, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: >>> >>>I agree the name sucks, and I'd much prefer to just call it arm64 as >>>well. The main advantage of the aarch64 name is that it's the same >>>as the identifier in the elf triplet, [...] to identify the >>>architecture, [...] the rpm and dpkg architecture names, and [...] >>>the uname syscall. >> >>Any hindrance changing the specs? There is not even arm64 hardware - or >>aarch64, for that matter - out there yet according to the initial post, >>so I doubt there is anything in userspace yet. > >There is, in gnu config (the autoconf config.sub/config.guess stuff), and >maybe some of the gnu toolchain? > >I did wonder why the awkward aarch64 identifier instead of something like >arm64 which has also the benefit of good marketing by carrying the ARM name >in the arch name, but since it was not my place to ask about it and ARM had >already submitted "aarch64" to gnu upstream...
Well maybe ARM just wants to render itself unimportant. Fine by me, but the shareholders might think differently ;-) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/