On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Sandra Loosemore <san...@codesourcery.com> wrote: > On 01/20/2015 11:40 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Sandra Loosemore >> <san...@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 <ebotca...@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 >
"x86-32" is mentioned in http://www.lyberty.com/tech/terms/x86_WHAT-IS_.html http://superuser.com/questions/186503/is-x86-32-bit-or-64-bit https://forums.digitalpoint.com/threads/what-does-x64-and-x86-mean.674631/ -- H.J.
