[ping] Re: proper name of i386/x86-64/etc targets

[Michael Matz]

Hi,

On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, 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.


Ciao,
Michael.