4 ms·

Minor nitpick: the author uses "Linux" as a keyword and uses gcc for examples but refers to the architecture as x64, which is a very Microsoft thing and a bit o

Minor nitpick: the author uses "Linux" as a keyword and uses gcc for examples but refers to the architecture as x64, which is a very Microsoft thing and a bit of a misnomer.

chrisseaton 4y ago
> but refers to the architecture as x64 What do you think the correct name is? I call it AMD64, as that's the name the authors gave it. But they also previously called it x86-64, so maybe that's valid. x86_64, x64, etc, no idea why people had to come up with their own names beyond AMD64 or x86-64!
- Joker_vD 4y ago
  What are you talking about? It's either Intel 64 or IA-32e, anything else is a misnomer! /s
- moonchild 4y ago
  Don't forget EM64T!
- chasil 4y ago
  While I default to AMD64, Intel 64 is the latest variant from the eponymous manufacturer. There is some justification for Intel 64, as AMD suffered a series of mistakes and bad decisions, starting with the "Barcelona" Opterons, only recently emerging from these problems. Intel has been the best-performing AMD64 implementation for much of this standard's time on the market, so a little revisionism must be excused.
  - hulitu 4y ago
    Intel 64 ? You mean the Itanic ?
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      No that's IA-64 - that's something else entirely. Intel 64 != IA-64.
    - chasil 4y ago
      "Various names are used for the instruction set. Prior to the launch, x86-64 and x86_64 were used, while upon the release AMD named it AMD64. Intel initially used the names IA-32e and EM64T before finally settling on 'Intel 64' for its implementation. Some in the industry, including Apple, use x86-64 and x86_64, while others, notably Sun Microsystems (now Oracle Corporation) and Microsoft, use x64. The BSD family of OSs and several Linux distributions use AMD64, as does Microsoft Windows internally." "The x86-64 architecture is distinct from the Intel Itanium architecture (formerly IA-64). The architectures are not compatible on the native instruction set level, and operating systems and applications compiled for one cannot be run on the other." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#cite_note-11 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#cite_note-11
binarycrusader 4y ago
...refers to the architecture as x64, which is a very Microsoft thing and a bit of a misnomer. No, it is not. Various Linux distributions even refer to it as "x64" in various places: https://access.redhat.com/ecosystem/software/1474383 https://access.redhat.com/ecosystem/software/1474383 https://developers.redhat.com/products/openjdk/download https://developers.redhat.com/products/openjdk/download https://support.quest.com/download-install-detail/6109808 https://support.quest.com/download-install-detail/6109808 With that said, I personally use "amd64" which coincidentally, is the same thing Microsoft refers to it various places including Windows packaging itself: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/midl/-amd64 https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/midl/-amd64 This is definitely not a Microsoft thing.

Minor nitpick: the author uses "Linux" as a keyword and uses gcc for examples but refers to the architecture as x64, which is a very Microsoft thing and a bit of a misnomer.

chrisseaton 4y ago

> but refers to the architecture as x64 What do you think the correct name is? I call it AMD64, as that's the name the authors gave it. But they also previously called it x86-64, so maybe that's valid. x86_64, x64, etc, no idea why people had to come up with their own names beyond AMD64 or x86-64!

Joker_vD 4y ago
What are you talking about? It's either Intel 64 or IA-32e, anything else is a misnomer! /s
moonchild 4y ago
Don't forget EM64T!
chasil 4y ago
While I default to AMD64, Intel 64 is the latest variant from the eponymous manufacturer. There is some justification for Intel 64, as AMD suffered a series of mistakes and bad decisions, starting with the "Barcelona" Opterons, only recently emerging from these problems. Intel has been the best-performing AMD64 implementation for much of this standard's time on the market, so a little revisionism must be excused.
- hulitu 4y ago
  Intel 64 ? You mean the Itanic ?
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    No that's IA-64 - that's something else entirely. Intel 64 != IA-64.
  - chasil 4y ago
    "Various names are used for the instruction set. Prior to the launch, x86-64 and x86_64 were used, while upon the release AMD named it AMD64. Intel initially used the names IA-32e and EM64T before finally settling on 'Intel 64' for its implementation. Some in the industry, including Apple, use x86-64 and x86_64, while others, notably Sun Microsystems (now Oracle Corporation) and Microsoft, use x64. The BSD family of OSs and several Linux distributions use AMD64, as does Microsoft Windows internally." "The x86-64 architecture is distinct from the Intel Itanium architecture (formerly IA-64). The architectures are not compatible on the native instruction set level, and operating systems and applications compiled for one cannot be run on the other." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#cite_note-11 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#cite_note-11

binarycrusader 4y ago

...refers to the architecture as x64, which is a very Microsoft thing and a bit of a misnomer. No, it is not. Various Linux distributions even refer to it as "x64" in various places: https://access.redhat.com/ecosystem/software/1474383 https://access.redhat.com/ecosystem/software/1474383 https://developers.redhat.com/products/openjdk/download https://developers.redhat.com/products/openjdk/download https://support.quest.com/download-install-detail/6109808 https://support.quest.com/download-install-detail/6109808 With that said, I personally use "amd64" which coincidentally, is the same thing Microsoft refers to it various places including Windows packaging itself: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/midl/-amd64 https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/midl/-amd64 This is definitely not a Microsoft thing.