News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on GNU Assembler Patches For Optimizing The Intel Jump Conditional Code Erratum. Parent comment

Re:GNU Assembler Patches For Optimizing The Intel Jump Condi... by bArray on Thursday November 14, 2019 @06:50AM (#21534671)
It'll confuse the hell out of people, but I think it's probably the way to go. I hope for example that Linux based package managers split the "amd64" so that we all don't get hit by this crap.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:GNU Assembler Patches For Optimizing The Intel Jump Condi... by yabadabadoes on Thursday November 14, 2019 @06:56AM (#21534700)
The naming AMD64 correctly was visionary, but what do we call broken x64?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:GNU Assembler Patches For Optimizing The Intel Jump Condi... by cassianoleal on Thursday November 14, 2019 @07:01AM (#21534721)
Clearly, intel64
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:GNU Assembler Patches For Optimizing The Intel Jump Condi... by saagarjha on Thursday November 14, 2019 @07:53AM (#21534977)
Why not “Intel Architecture 64-bit” to be clear? You can even shorten it to “IA-64”.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:GNU Assembler Patches For Optimizing The Intel Jump Condi... by roblabla on Thursday November 14, 2019 @08:00AM (#21535019)
Unsure if this is a joke and I'm about to be wooshed, but for anyone who doesn't know:

Unfortunately, IA-64 is already taken for the itanium architecture. That's why the Intel Software Developer Manual names it IA32-E and not IA64. IA32 is x86, IA32-E is x86 Extended, or x86_64.

Thanks intel, I guess.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:GNU Assembler Patches For Optimizing The Intel Jump Condi... by saagarjha on Thursday November 14, 2019 @08:02AM (#21535033)
It's a joke ;)
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:GNU Assembler Patches For Optimizing The Intel Jump Condi... by ajb on Thursday November 14, 2019 @07:52AM (#21534973)
x64_broken. Tell it like it is.
[ Parent | on HN ]