Re: Intel vs AMD x86-64

Herbert Poetzl
2004-02-22T03:00:09Z

On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 07:47:21AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> >
> > What about naming? IA-64 is taken, AMD64 is too specific, Intel's
> > "IA-32e" sounds too vague, and I find x86-64 / x86_64 difficult to type.
> > "x64" perhaps?
>
> x86-64 it is. Maybe you can remap one of your function keys to send the
> sequence ;)
>
> This whole "ia32" crap has always been ridiculous - nobody has _ever_
> called an x86 anything but x86, and Intel is just making it worse by
> adding random illogical letters to the end.
>
> In contrast, x86-64 tells you _exactly_ what it's all about, and is what
> the kernel has always called the architecture anyway.

hmm, so the current x86_64 will be changed to x86-64 or
will there be x86_64 and x86-64?

probably I missed something important, but AMD64 seems
to be labeled x86_64 in 2.4 and 2.6

# ls linux-2.4.25/arch/
alpha/ cris/ ia64/ mips/ parisc/ ppc64/ s390x/ sh64/ sparc64/
arm/ i386/ m68k/ mips64/ ppc/ s390/ sh/ sparc/ x86_64/

# ls linux-2.6.3/arch/
alpha/ cris/ ia64/ mips/ ppc64/ sparc/ v850/
arm/ h8300/ m68k/ parisc/ s390/ sparc64/ x86_64/
arm26/ i386/ m68knommu/ ppc/ sh/ um/

TIA,
Herbert

> Linus
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/