Re: platform/pc64 will be dropped

[Erik Wikström <erik-wikstrom@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 2007-08-23 10:20, Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I just had a look into making the kernel compile for amd64. What I
> found is the following.
>
> The platform files for pc32 and pc64 are VERY simmilar. In fact,
> everything which is not simmilar is cpu-specific bits which need to go
> into the cpu hierarchy.
>
> Maintaining both seems to be absolutely backwards. Why have different
> trees for the same hardware? The hardware *is* the same. It is just the
> CPU, i.e. the instruction set architecture (ISA) which is different.
> Everything else, ranging from acpi to smp is the same. So the obvious
> and correct solution is to just maintain one.
>
> This, however, leaves us with an awkward name. Pc32 for x86_64? The
> pc32 name always seemed wrong. How about calling it "ibm-pc"? After all,
> that's the basic architecture, since almost 20 years. Actually, the more
> I think about it, the more it makes sense it me.

Why not just pc? I know that technically a PC does not have to be an IBM 
compatible computer, but what other kind of computer could one mean when 
saying PC. If you mean a Mac you say Mac, an Amiga is an Amiga and so on