| 1 |
Christoph Mende wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:59:11 -0500 |
| 3 |
> "William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> Unless the work to do that is greater than the value of the change. |
| 5 |
> It most likely is. And beside of that: amd64 is the technically correct |
| 6 |
> term. :p |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
*sigh* I know I'm going to regret going down this road, but, "lies!". ;) |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
AMD implemented x86-64, and marketed it as "AMD64". Intel cloned it as "EM64T", |
| 11 |
later renamed "Intel 64". GCC compiles for x86-64 which is the subset of the two. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
But I agree, rekeywording amd64 to x86_64 would probably be more work than it's |
| 14 |
worth. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
-- |
| 18 |
fonts, by design, by neglect |
| 19 |
gcc-porting, for a fact or just for effect |
| 20 |
wxwindows @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives