This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
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 10:40:08 -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>
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Sandra Loosemore
<sandra@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On 01/20/2015 08:11 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>
>>>> At least, IA-32 is clear, although IA-64 may be confusing :-). FWIW,
>>>> i386 is also vendor specific.
>>>
>>>
>>> Wikipedia agrees [1]:
>>
>>
>> I wouldn't use a wikipedia article that only cites sources from after 2008
>> (and most of them actually after the after-the-fact invention of "ia32")
>> for an architecture that exists since 1985 as sensible source for
>> supporting either point of view ;-) It totally lacks references to
>> config.guess which IMHO is a much better source of "how to call an
>> architecture" :)
>
>
> I brought up the Wikipedia names in my initial query because I presume the
> Wikipedians have already fought the battle over what color to paint this
> particular bikeshed. :-)
>
> FWIW, I was employed at Intel back in the 2001-2003 timeframe and my vague
> recollection was that it was during that time that they started promoting
> "IA-32" as the official name for the 32-bit x86 architecture, as a branding
> thing to better promote their own "IA-64" architecture as its 64-bit
> successor rather than AMD's "x86-64". So certainly a lot of the confusion
> arises because the 32-bit x86 architecture was around under other names long
> before Intel re-named it.
>
> 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.
--
H.J.