On 11/28/2009 10:39 AM, Roberto Ragusa wrote:
Sir Gallantmon wrote:
> Why not label it "x86_32" instead of i386? That is far less confusing
> and illustrates that it is 32-bit on the x86 architecture, since x86_64
> says it is 64-bit on x86 architecture.
Because x86_32 is not an architecture name. You are just creating it from
x86_64.
32 bit is i386 or IA32.
64 bit is x86_64 or AMD64
(BTW, I would have preferred AMD64 to be more used for 64 bit, as AMD
should be given credit for the creation of the architecture, in contrast
to Intel which gave us the disaster called IA64).
AMD64 is a subset of x86_64, not an equivalent. The equivalent to AMD64 from the Intel
side is EM64T. There's certainly a few minor niggling differences between the two
architecture-wise, but we don't bias toward either and thus shouldn't name
either.
--CJD