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

[Sandra Loosemore]

On 01/20/2015 11:40 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Sandra Loosemore
> <sandra@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>> 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.

On 01/20/2015 12:02 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@adacore.com> wrote:
>>> Ping?  Any thoughts?
>>
>> x86 for the family and x86-32/x86-64 for the 2 architectures?
>>
>
> Works for me.

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.

-Sandra