NASM 2.00rc1

Combuster · **Posted:** Wed Nov 21, 2007 4:34 am

Quote:

IA-64 != Intel 64

when expanding:

Intel 64 Architecture
Intel Architecture 64

You have one second to tell me which is the x86-64 and which is the itanium. Now there's exactly WHY that convention sucks.

SpooK · **Joined:** Sun Jun 18, 2006 7:21 pm **Posts:** 260

Combuster wrote:

Quote:

IA-64 != Intel 64

when expanding:

Intel 64 Architecture
Intel Architecture 64

You have one second to tell me which is the x86-64 and which is the itanium. Now there's exactly WHY that convention sucks.

IA-64: Itanium -> Itanium 2
Intel x86-64: Yamhill -> Clackamas -> IA-32e -> EM64T -> Intel 64.

Probably took Intel some time to concede the fact that their IA-64 line was overpriced garbage and had to match "names" in order to establish that kind of recognition.

If I partnered the design for IA-64, I would try to erase/hide the mistake as well

SpooK · **Joined:** Sun Jun 18, 2006 7:21 pm **Posts:** 260

Candy wrote:

C offers the possibility of #include <> or #include "" for that very purpose. What about offering the same functionality, or if you don't see a way to do so, to offer only the second (which includes all of the first)?

From the DEV group, in response to the above...

H. Peter Anvin wrote:

That's not what <> versus "" does. <> is used for system headers, which
for most compilers mean "only paths that are build in or specified with
-I, do not search the local directory."

If anyone is willing to write a pathname manipulation library in portable C that handles all common platforms, we might consider using it for a future version. Again, Perl's File::Spec has some good API ideas.

OSDev.org

NASM 2.00rc1

Who is online