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 01/20/2015 11:40 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Sandra Loosemore
<sandra@codesourcery.com> wrote:
Since there seems to be arguments against using both "IA-32" and "i386" for
the 32-bit x86 architecture, how about, uh, "32-bit x86"?  With the other
names in parentheses where appropriate?  I think we could also ignore the
16-bit x86 variants for the purposes of GCC and just use "x86" instead of
"i386 and x86-64".


Please don't invent a new name.  It may confuse people.

On 01/20/2015 12:02 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@adacore.com> wrote:
Ping?  Any thoughts?

x86 for the family and x86-32/x86-64 for the 2 architectures?


Works for me.

Ummm, this seems like an inconsistent position. "32-bit x86" isn't even a new name; it's a restricting adjective "32-bit" on the existing name "x86". But "x86-32" isn't an existing real name for anything, as far as I can tell.

-Sandra


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