On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Sandra Loosemore <san...@codesourcery.com> wrote: > On 01/20/2015 12:21 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Sandra Loosemore >> <san...@codesourcery.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> 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. >>> >> "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/ > > > I wouldn't consider random blog or forum postings to be reliable sources. > Can you cite manufacturer/vendor literature, technical reports, or news > articles using that term? > > FWIW, when I'm reviewing BSPs and associated documentation for > Mentor's own products, I always check the manufacturer's web site and verify > that we use the name exactly as it appears in their own marketing literature > and/or data sheets. Wikipedia's standards for naming are a little > different.... they prefer to use the most common and familiar name for > things.
I checked with my colleagues at Intel. x86-32 is somtimes used to refer 32-bit processors from Intel and AMD. -- H.J.
