Mailing-List: contact dev-help@harmony.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: 216.86.168.178 is neither permitted
 nor denied by domain of geir@pobox.com)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
In-Reply-To: <ep5evt$7hl$1@sea.gmane.org>
References: <ep51fs$hnt$1@sea.gmane.org>
 <3A5263C8-1278-44F4-AF1C-B053EF46876A@pobox.com> <ep5evt$7hl$1@sea.gmane.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <0F725E33-17B3-4E56-9634-8C810DCA4980@pobox.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <geir@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: [general] Correct name for 64-bit architecture (not IPF)
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 14:38:32 -0500
To: dev@harmony.apache.org


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.

geir

>
>> (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
>