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 11:38 AM, Sandra Loosemore
<sandra@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On 01/20/2015 12:21 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Sandra Loosemore
>> <sandra@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>> http://www.lyberty.com/tech/terms/x86_WHAT-IS_.html
>> http://superuser.com/questions/186503/is-x86-32-bit-or-64-bit
>> https://forums.digitalpoint.com/threads/what-does-x64-and-x86-mean.674631/
>
>
> I wouldn't consider random blog or forum postings to be reliable sources.
> Can you cite manufacturer/vendor literature, technical reports, or news
> articles using that term?
>
> FWIW, when I'm reviewing BSPs and associated documentation for
> Mentor's own products, I always check the manufacturer's web site and verify
> that we use the name exactly as it appears in their own marketing literature
> and/or data sheets.  Wikipedia's standards for naming are a little
> different....  they prefer to use the most common and familiar name for
> things.

I checked with my colleagues at Intel.  x86-32 is somtimes used to refer
32-bit processors from Intel and AMD.


-- 
H.J.


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