This is the mail archive of the 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 3:23 PM, 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.

Wikipedia agrees [1]:

IA-32 (short for "Intel Architecture, 32-bit", sometimes also called
i386[1][2] through metonymy)[3] is the third generation of the x86
architecture, first implemented in the Intel 80386 microprocessors in
1985. It was the first incarnation of x86 to support 32-bit
computing.[4] As such, "IA-32" may be used as a metonym to refer to
all x86 versions that support 32-bit computing.[5][6]

IMO, comparing IA-32 and i386, IA-32 looks better.



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