4 ms·
Isn't the official term aarch64?
by pingiun 9y ago
Isn't the official term aarch64?
- gabuzome 9y agoIt's the official term from the ARMv8 architecture and also the name adopted by toolchains, but "arm64" was chosen for Linux: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/15/127 https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/15/127
- yuhong 9y agoThanks to Linus Torvalds I think.
- Conan_Kudo 9y agoYes, but like Debian, OpenBSD is ignoring that. Fedora, openSUSE, Mageia, etc. use the official term. Debian and the BSDs use the informal "arm64" term.
- lerax 9y agoThe informal makes more sense, BTW.
- pm215 9y agoTrue, but there's some merit to being consistent with the naming used by the toolchain (which appears in things like cross compiler binary names) and the name printed by the linux kernel in 'uname -a')...
- lloeki 9y agoWell I misread it as amd64, thought it "can't be possible" and had to come down to this thread to realise the nature of my mistake. aarch32 and aarch64 are strictly ARMv8, while arm32, being informal, could really be a catch-all term for all the previous ones. I don't know of any aarch32 distro though, they all seem to limit to ARMv7hf, which is sad because on a Raspberry Pi 3 you can't get the VideoCore binaries and v8 instruction set: going 64bit means most hardware does not work (at least: no X/wayland, no 3D, no sound), and some benchmarks have shown that they bring up 15-20% performance improvements. Anyway, this is basically the same debate as x64 vs x86-64 vs amd64 and mostly bike shedding at the end of the day.