On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:43 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > >
When you can do # git log --grep="x86-32" in Linux kernel source tree, you will find out x86-32 is used to refer 32-bit x86. -- H.J.
