From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org)
by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
(envelope-from <gentoo-dev+bounces-29512-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
id 1JS0SY-0007SI-5U
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:42:50 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 60A6EE04C6;
Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:42:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BB2EE04C6
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:42:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF74465282
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:42:47 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org
X-Spam-Score: -1.866
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.866 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.733,
BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id emFRhj1Ls6Hj for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>;
Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:42:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2])
(using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 136CB652F4
for <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:42:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43)
id 1JS0SA-0004Rr-Ao
for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:42:26 +0000
Received: from static24-72-115-196.yorkton.accesscomm.ca ([24.72.115.196])
by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
for <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:42:26 +0000
Received: from dirtyepic by static24-72-115-196.yorkton.accesscomm.ca with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
for <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:42:26 +0000
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
From: Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@gentoo.org>
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Keyword amd64 -> x86_64
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 19:42:19 -0600
Message-ID: <fpiktr$682$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <1203530351.26229.17.camel@wlt.obsidian-studios.com> <20080220215530.5688b989@gentoo.org>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: static24-72-115-196.yorkton.accesscomm.ca
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20080212 Thunderbird/2.0.0.9 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0
In-Reply-To: <20080220215530.5688b989@gentoo.org>
Sender: news <news@ger.gmane.org>
X-Archives-Salt: 71964a7f-20bf-4dd7-be7d-832e0f3f45d0
X-Archives-Hash: 8f349fdd27ccf2364a0057adc7c536c9
Christoph Mende wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:59:11 -0500
> "William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Unless the work to do that is greater than the value of the change.
> It most likely is. And beside of that: amd64 is the technically correct
> term. :p
*sigh* I know I'm going to regret going down this road, but, "lies!". ;)
AMD implemented x86-64, and marketed it as "AMD64". Intel cloned it as "EM64T",
later renamed "Intel 64". GCC compiles for x86-64 which is the subset of the two.
But I agree, rekeywording amd64 to x86_64 would probably be more work than it's
worth.
--
fonts, by design, by neglect
gcc-porting, for a fact or just for effect
wxwindows @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list