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: Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>
- Cc: Sandra Loosemore <sandra at codesourcery dot com>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com>, GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 06:23:10 -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> <alpine dot LNX dot 2 dot 00 dot 1501201501140 dot 681 at wotan dot suse dot de> <CAMe9rOq3_qQPOeL+kt2koGmKgagwxhesr41M9Z3=kK=NJELU+g at mail dot gmail dot com> <alpine dot LNX dot 2 dot 00 dot 1501201513500 dot 681 at wotan dot suse dot de>
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 6:14 AM, Michael Matz <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> > 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.
> That's what I meant with its own problems :) But ia32 seems worse to me
> than this IMO.
At least, IA-32 is clear, although IA-64 may be confusing :-). FWIW,
i386 is also vendor specific.