This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [ping] Re: proper name of i386/x86-64/etc targets


On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 6:07 AM, Michael Matz <matz@suse.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2015, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>
>> > 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.
>>
>> Ping?  Any thoughts?
>
> ia32 is confusing because ia64 (a well known term) sounds related but
> can't be farther away from it, and it's also vendor specific.  Our
> traditional i386 seems better to me (although it has its own problems, but
> I'm not aware of any better abbreviation in the wild that's vendor neutral
> and specifically means the 32bit incarnation of the x86 architecture).
>

The problem with i386 is it is a real processor.  When someone says i386,
it isn't clear if it means the processor or 32-bit x86.


-- 
H.J.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]