harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gregory Shimansky <gshiman...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] Correct name for 64-bit architecture (not IPF)
Date Tue, 23 Jan 2007 23:01:37 GMT
On Tuesday 23 January 2007 22:38 Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> On Jan 23, 2007, at 12:00 PM, Gregory Shimansky wrote:
> > Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> >> +1
> >> (I thought we'd agreed on this - there were a few remaining cases,
> >> I thought.)
> >
> > I've grepped the sources and found very many places with em64t in
> > DRLVM and quite many of amd64 in classlib. I think I'll try to
> > clean the sources and build system completely of mentioning vendor
> > specific identifiers, so that all functions, interfaces and
> > constants could be reused in easily in any other code.
>
> I meant in meaningful functional places where there would be external
> visibility or behavior.  I'll take a look too.

This is the question I was actually wanted to ask. Does it make sense to 
completely eliminate all traces of vendor specific platform names like em64t 
and amd64 from source and source file names? Grep with -i, there are many 
variations in the case.

> >> (and I thought that "em64t" was intel shorthand for what AMD calls
> >> "amd64" which is "x86_64")
> >
> > Yes it is true.
> >
> >> On Jan 23, 2007, at 8:10 AM, Gregory Shimansky wrote:
> >>> Hello
> >>>
> >>> Today while investigating the bug in HARMONY-2975 it appeared
> >>> that eclipse doesn't start on 64-bit Linux because os.arch
> >>> property value is em64t. The property is set in DRLVM source.
> >>> Eclipse doesn't recognize this architecture and failed to load
> >>> SWT library. When this property value is changed to x86_64
> >>> Eclipse runs ok.
> >>>
> >>> I think we should agree how to call 64-bit platform and I think
> >>> it is better to follow the same convention as is used in Linux,
> >>> that is call it x86_64 [1].
> >>>
> >>> It may happen that for better compatibility or reuse of VM and
> >>> classlib code in other projects we'll need to change some other
> >>> em64t and amd64 mentions in the sources to x86_64. If there is no
> >>> strong objection I would like to change all sources to use only
> >>> x86_64 instead of brand names, and rename the files which contain
> >>> em64t in their names. What do you think?
> >>>
> >>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EM64T#Industry_naming_conventions
> >>>
> >>> --Gregory
> >
> > --
> > Gregory

-- 
Gregory

Mime
View raw message