This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [ping] Re: proper name of i386/x86-64/etc targets
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Sandra Loosemore <sandra at codesourcery dot com>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>, GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Kirill Yukhin <kirill dot yukhin at gmail dot com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 05:02:27 -0800
- Subject: Re: [ping] Re: proper name of i386/x86-64/etc targets
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <54A5E698 dot 60702 at codesourcery dot com> <54BDBCF0 dot 9050801 at codesourcery dot com> <CAFULd4ZyrzmJWhRz=ZHuoWCfc3s3HNjxKEB3btH7uv0KxRkSgw at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:31 PM, Uros Bizjak <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Sandra Loosemore
> <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> I've noticed that the GCC user documentation is quite inconsistent about
>>> the name(s) it uses for i386/x86-64/etc targets. invoke.texi has a
>>> section for "i386 and x86-64 Options", but in other places the manual
>>> uses x86, X86, i?86, i86, x86_64 (underscore instead of a dash),
>>> I'd be happy to work on a patch to bring the manual to using a common
>>> naming convention, but what should it be? Wikipedia seems to use "x86"
>>> (lowercase) to refer to the entire family of architectures (including
>>> the original 16-bit variants), "IA-32" for the 32-bit architecture (I
>>> believe that is Intel's official name), and "x86-64" (with a dash
>>> instead of underscore) for the 64-bit architecture. But of course the
>>> target maintainers should have the final say on what names to use.
I like this suggestion. Thanks.
>> Ping? Any thoughts?
> Let's ask Intel people ...