View Single Post
Old 03-01-04, 10:30 PM   #16
SnapIT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 154
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by J.F.
Intel is planning to eventually release an AMD64 compatible chip based on both Xeon and Prescott cores later this year. You can get the manuals now off Intel's site. Intel calls it ia-32e and it implements all the AMD64 instruction and architecture changes other than the No-Execute bit (which they mark as reserved, so maybe it'll still make it into the final release).

Reading through the Intel docs is rather funny. First, they make it seem like this was all their idea and that it's just a coincidence that it happens to be compatible with AMD64. You won't find an acknowledgement of AMD anywhere in the manual. Second, they try very hard not to scare away their Itanium customers. ia-32e (AMD64) is NOT a 64 bit processor, rather, it's just an extension to 64 bit addresses. However, since the addresses are 64 bits long, the registers need to be 64 bits long too. And since the addresses are 64 bits long, you need 64 bit operations to do 64 bit pointer operations. In no way are you to believe that makes it a 64 bit processor competing with Itanium.

Linux went with the symbol x86-64 because Linus preferred that to AMD64. BSD went with AMD and used AMD64. Microsoft also went with AMD64 after Intel swore they'd NEVER make an AMD64 compatible chip. So MS is in the peculiar position of having 64 bit Windows software compiling with the AMD64 symbol which will run on Intel chips.

As far as load modules go, this is the closest I could find on the FreeBSD AMD64 mailing list -



Hope it helps answer your question. If you need more info, I suggest emailing Peter.
Well, hopefully intel will realize their mistake and implement it, without it, the cpu in itself needs a bugfix, can you imagine the overhead for such a bugfix in sw in a separately loaded part of nvram? every single instruction would have to pass through... or just give it up and realize that you have a wide open system no matter what you do...

Regarding the post from Peter, i find it rather strange to change the path so soon after a closer integration goal on the other branches, it makes no sense to me, but i will look into it closer and repost what i find...

Thanx for the info....

//Patrick
SnapIT is offline   Reply With Quote