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

[Sandra Loosemore]

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".

> Anyway, I've said the things I had to say, crouching back under my stone
> :)

Likewise going back to hiding under my lilypad.  :-)

-Sandra