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: Sandra Loosemore <sandra at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail 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>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 11:21:09 -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> <CAMe9rOprNgLo_WbweyBM+WqcrccprbeiF18Rk_vk34+1VJ1mKg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAFULd4YuQXSbnWbZTn-QhjCvGrKGug13_M77eBSkHDU_V0VTmA at mail dot gmail dot com> <alpine dot LNX dot 2 dot 00 dot 1501201607110 dot 681 at wotan dot suse dot de> <54BE9DFF dot 3020405 at codesourcery dot com> <CAMe9rOq9xwbmYsZsxU6onzCWD81m7ehk2SvS-hFvTVYx3xJC_g at mail dot gmail dot com> <54BEA995 dot 8040807 at codesourcery dot com>
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Sandra Loosemore
> On 01/20/2015 11:40 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Sandra Loosemore
>> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> Since there seems to be arguments against using both "IA-32" and "i386"
>>> 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 <email@example.com>
>>>> 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.
"x86-32" is mentioned in