Be careful here. The official (legal) name is INTEl*64 and its trademarked the vendor neutral term is x86-64.
Yes AMD did >>some << of the original 64 bit extens (not all btw). intel was focused on Itanium at the time and I personally think AMD did a wonderful thing for all of us. IMO it would have a disaster for the industry if intel had done a different set. Thankfully when the folks at Intel started to think about what would become Xeon, the intel team started with what Amd had and ran with it from there. Intel has added to the architecture since the original work and tried very hard to consosant of where there are differences in compliant implementations. ie INTEL*64 is not 100% the same as other implementation - just like IBM 360 is not 100% the same as other implementations. That said Intel does publishes a spec of what the architecture is (I can get that URL if you like. I'm on my iPhone and don't have it handy). More over the intel compilers continue to be the best compilers for any INTEL*64 architecture and most manufactures besides Intel use it has their benchmark compiler. Intel does considers it a bug if some discovers a place where the intel compilers do not create code that execute on non-intel developed implementations and at least try to understand why if not be able to fix the compiler outright. Intel does not try to put optimization for non intel implementations but contrary to rumor, they do not intentionally slow down non Intel implementations either. The architecture is INTEL*64 and while you can note it that some of the 64 bit parts were developed outside of Intel - the history is that the architecture is based on the Intel ISA that goes back to 4004 long before AMD even was a firm or 16/32 much less 64 bits were cared about. Frankly in my experience the ISVs would not use a Intel compilers (we they do it's the #1 used compiler by production folks) if Intel did otherwise As always this are my own brows and necessary those of my employer Clem Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 11, 2015, at 8:27 AM, Rhialto <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Thu 09 Jul 2015 at 10:48:51 -0400, Clem Cole wrote: >> So it will be interesting to see if Intel*64 can survive the current > > Isn't it really AMD who invented the 64-bit extensions? > It it isn't called amd64 for no reason. > It seems lame if Intel now would get credited with it when they didn't > even invent it, and AMD goes under in the mean time. > > -Olaf. > -- > ___ Olaf 'Rhialto' Seibert -- The Doctor: No, 'eureka' is Greek for > \X/ rhialto/at/xs4all.nl -- 'this bath is too hot.' _______________________________________________ Simh mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh
