svn commit: r222183 - head/lib/clang

[Bjoern A. Zeeb]

On May 22, 2011, at 10:01 PM, Warner Losh wrote:

> 
> On May 22, 2011, at 3:30 PM, Mark Linimon wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 10:22:56PM +0200, Roman Divacky wrote:
>>> The problem here is deeper in my opinion. What FreeBSD calls
>>> amd64 the rest of the world (ie. linux) calls x86_64, I think
>>> that instead of this we should teach llvm/clang about "amd64".
>>> Maybe as a FreeBSD-only diff.
>> 
>> If we move away from "amd64", we are going to need a _substantial_ amount
>> of work on ports.
> 
> Yea.  That's why I think, although I'd like to move away from it, we're stuck with amd64 for both MACHINE and MACHINE_ARCH for quite some time.  In that case, we'll just have to configure clang the same way we configure gcc with the x86_64 monicker.

Is there an authoritative source for these names?  I am not quite sure
what led to the confusion in first place but I guess it's the "oh Intel
is doing EMT64 let's not call this amd" kind of thing.

I seem to remember that apart from the linux kernel and OSX most others
incl. windows, java and sun used to call it amd64 as well when it came to
technical things.  So I am not exactly sure why this regularly comes up
but I'd assume it's because of "what linux calls it must be right"?

I admit that it's confusing to got to x86-64.org and see it called the
amd64 architecture.  I am sure Peter and David know a lot more about this.

Despite remembering Dragonfly having done the change I cannot see FreeBSD
doing the same in a short timeframe, and yet I have no idea why we wanted to?

/bz

The color shall be red.

-- 
Bjoern A. Zeeb                                 You have to have visions!
         Stop bit received. Insert coin for new address family.