site_archiver@lists.apple.com Delivered-To: darwin-dev@lists.apple.com On 9 Aug 2006, at 12:53, Chad Leigh wrote: On Aug 8, 2006, at 9:09 PM, Eric Albert wrote: On Aug 8, 2006, at 1:55 PM, almisr wrote: IA-32-64 would be appropriately unconfusifying, then ;-) -- Graham Lee "Oxford University's UNIX Expert" Quick, run before they find the truth http://iamleeg.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Darwin-dev mailing list (Darwin-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/darwin-dev/site_archiver%40lists.appl... Mike has implemented ACPI 2 standard in IA-64 for Darwin, By the way, IA-64 is the name Intel uses for Itanium, which Darwin does not support. We've been using "Intel 64-bit" or "x86-64" for our latest architecture. Sun I think uses x64 which is kind of a nice shorthand for x86-64. A lot of people like FreeBSD use amd64 since AMD fathered the particular 64bit architecture which intel copied. Would be nice if Darwin/Apple etc used a name that is already in use by others so a to not offer more confusion. how about EM64T, or "washing machine controller chip with a few extensions"? Seriously, AMD invented this stuff and they call it x86-64, so I think that's a reasonable decision and already in use. i38664 would have been wrong. NetBSD, RedHat/Fedora/Centos use x86_64. But IA-64 is Itanium in most people's mind, that I agree with. This email sent to site_archiver@lists.apple.com