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