Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Benoit PAPILLAULT <benoit.papillault AT sourcemage.org>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64
  • Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 08:44:40 +0200

David Michael Leo Brown Jr. a écrit :
Why not make archspecs for your architecture instead of modifying someone
else's
to work on yours?


I'm not suggesting changing, I'm suggesting integrating the current x86_[32,64] files to k8_[32,64] files then changing x86_[32,64] files to properly advertize what the file name suggests.

- David Brown

Interesting! I did know that x86-64 was the generic name for Intel(r) and AMD(r) 64 bits processor architecture, but I did not have the possibility to check anything. The k8 seems now obsolete, since in gcc 3.4.3, you have the more readable name athlon64. However, I did not see x86-64 in the gcc man page (however it works with gcc 3.4.3).

As far as the ISO is concerned, and since we are producing a "i486" ISO for anything which is compatible with i486 (ie, i586 and i686), I think we should produce an x86-64 ISO that would work both on Intel(r) and AMD(r) 64 bits processor. That would mean 3 archspecs:

x86-64 : generic 64 bits
athlon64 : amd 64 bits specific
em64t : intel 64 bits specific (except that it is currently the same as x86-64, right?)

Benoit PAPILLAULT, ISO guru




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page