x64 versions of linux

[glasscleaner]

I try to search on google a list of x64 linux version and i dont find anything right.

someone have a tips?

thanks

[Crimson Behelit]

The following distros have x86_64 arches (list is incomplete... just off the top of my head)

Fedora Core

Ubuntu

SuSE

Gentoo

Arch

Mandrake

[markwolfe Veteran]

Go to http://distrowatch.com/search.php

and select x86_64 from the "Archetecture" drop down. (Y)

[beh]

gentoo! :)

[LaNcom]

A short history lesson:

- AMD invents the extension, calls it x86-64.

- Linux, the first OS that supports x86-64, calls the arch accordingly.

- AMD renames x86-64 to amd64, to make clear they invented it.

- Intel implements amd64 support, but calls it em64t, to trick users into thinking they didn't copy from AMD.

- Intel asks the Linux kernel devs to rename the arch to em64t, or at least add em64t as an alias. Linus refuses, tells Intel that he would rather call the whole arch amd64 system-wide.

- Intel asks Microsoft to rename Windows XP amd64, and they do. Microsoft invents the x86 name, maybe to please both parties, or maybe to make mere users think Microsoft invented amd64.

- SUN, being the opportunists they are, call the Solaris arch x64 too.

Resume: x86-64 (original name) == amd64 (official standard name) == em64t (Intel trademark) == x64 (Microsoft/ SUN buzzword)... ;-)

[ichi]

A short history lesson:

- AMD invents the extension, calls it x86-64.

- Linux, the first OS that supports x86-64, calls the arch accordingly.

- AMD renames x86-64 to amd64, to make clear they invented it.

- Intel implements amd64 support, but calls it em64t, to trick users into thinking they didn't copy from AMD.

- Intel asks the Linux kernel devs to rename the arch to em64t, or at least add em64t as an alias. Linus refuses, tells Intel that he would rather call the whole arch amd64 system-wide.

- Intel asks Microsoft to rename Windows XP amd64, and they do. Microsoft invents the x86 name, maybe to please both parties, or maybe to make mere users think Microsoft invented amd64.

- SUN, being the opportunists they are, call the Solaris arch x64 too.

Resume: x86-64 (original name) == amd64 (official standard name) == em64t (Intel trademark) == x64 (Microsoft/ SUN buzzword)... ;-)

586479199[/snapback]

The x64 name doesn't even make sense, what does the x stand for? :huh:

If it's just a random character, it's far to similar to the x86 arch name, which makes it confusing (well, maybe that was the intention after all).

[gertin]

A short history lesson:

- AMD invents the extension, calls it x86-64.

- Linux, the first OS that supports x86-64, calls the arch accordingly.

- AMD renames x86-64 to amd64, to make clear they invented it.

- Intel implements amd64 support, but calls it em64t, to trick users into thinking they didn't copy from AMD.

- Intel asks the Linux kernel devs to rename the arch to em64t, or at least add em64t as an alias. Linus refuses, tells Intel that he would rather call the whole arch amd64 system-wide.

- Intel asks Microsoft to rename Windows XP amd64, and they do. Microsoft invents the x86 name, maybe to please both parties, or maybe to make mere users think Microsoft invented amd64.

- SUN, being the opportunists they are, call the Solaris arch x64 too.

Resume: x86-64 (original name) == amd64 (official standard name) == em64t (Intel trademark) == x64 (Microsoft/ SUN buzzword)... ;-)

586479199[/snapback]

You gotta love the computer industry. :ninja:

[glasscleaner]

- Intel asks the Linux kernel devs to rename the arch to em64t, or at least add em64t as an alias. Linus refuses, tells Intel that he would rather call the whole arch amd64 system-wide

so em64t is amd64 compatible?

[LaNcom]

More or less. em64t misses a few amd64 functions and parts of the architecture (HyperTransport, integrated MC and NUMA capability are parts of amd64, as well as a few other things), and Intel added a few HyperThreading-specific functions. But those differences are only important for applications using those functions in Assembly code (never seen one), usually, compilers produce software that just works on both implementations. So yes, it's pretty much the same, unlike Intels SSE crap back then: Intel ripped 3DNow Ex, that was OK because AMD wanted 3DNow to become a standard. But they not only renamed the extension, they also made some slight changes to make SSE and 3DNow incompatible. If you look at the gcc compiler backends, you'll notice that both extensions are almost exactly the same, with only a few slight modifications (not improvements!)...