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

[H.J. Lu]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 6:14 AM, Michael Matz <matz@suse.de> wrote:
> 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.
>

At least, IA-32 is clear, although IA-64 may be confusing :-).  FWIW,
i386 is also vendor specific.


-- 
H.J.